The complaint has been investigated and
resolved to the customer's satisfactionResolved Dellovo Capital And Nc Department Of Justice — Scam
resolved to the customer's satisfaction
The North Carolina Depart of Justice has written Dellovo Capital a letter.
Mr. Louis Vitiello is the Attorney for Dellovo Capital and Ray Dellovo
Mr. Louis R. Vitiello, Esq.
4 Redcoat Lane
Lexington, MA 02420
Re: File No. 0915034
Dear Mr. Vitiello:
Thank you for your letter, dated November 2, 2009, in response to the complaint filed by Mr. Nathan Tabor. Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your letter. We understand that you are providing legal representation for Mr. Dellovo, president of Dellovo Capital Corporation (“client”) in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the subsequent response we received from Mr. Tabor in which he reiterates his demand for a refund. Your letter poses several jurisdictional issues which we would like to address.
First, you state that your client does not appear to be subject to North Carolina’s Loan Broker Act in that your client is a commercial loan broker, that Mr. Tabor does not appear to be a “consumer” as defined under the Act, and that the loan sought by Mr. Tabor was for his company and not for MR. Tabor individually. Second, you state that your client does not conduct business in North Carolina, that Mr. Tabor contacted your client in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and executed a loan agreement stating that the venue would be the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Third, you contend that North Carolina law is not applicable in this matter and that both parties have agreed to mediate Mr. Tabor’s claims in Massachusetts, which you believe is the appropriate venue.
As you may be aware, there has been a recent ruling by the North Carolina Court of Appeals which addresses some of the same issues cited in your letter. See Printing Services of Greensboro, Inc. v. American Capital Group, Inc., 180 N.C. App. 70, 637 S.E.2d 230 (2006), affirmed per curiam, 361 N.C. 347, 643 S.E.2d 586 (2007).
Mr. Louis R. Vitiello, Esq.
March 25, 2010
In summary, the Court held that (1) the defendant was not precluded from being considered a loan broker governed by the Loan Broker Act simply because the party for whom the loan was intended was a corporation and not an individual; (2) that although the terms of the agreement included a consent to jurisdiction in another state, the provision was permissive rather than mandatory; and (3) N.C. Gen Stat. § 66-112 provides that North Carolina’s Loan Broker Act applies in all circumstances in which any party to the contract conducted any contractual activity in this state, that the agreement was signed in this state, and that the discussion and negotiation of the agreement occurred in this state.
Based on this authority, it appears that your client is subject to the North Carolina Loan Broker Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-106 et seq. The Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-111, provides for the recovery of all fees paid to the broker if there has been a failure to fully comply with the requirements of the statute.
We request that you provide us with a written response within ten (10) days after receipt of this letter stating your client’s position. Based on the apparent non-compliance with the Loan Broker Act, we strongly recommend that your client provide Mr. Tabor a full refund in the amount of $10, 000. When submitting your response, please refer to File No. 0915034.
Thank you for your cooperation.
David C. Evers
Philip A. Lehman
Assistant Attorney General
CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION
Cc: Nathan Tabor