Pay-to-Pay Fees



 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

Get Answers to Our Firm's Most Frequently Asked Questions

Pay-to-Pay Fees Attorneys

Does Your Mortgage Lender Charge Fees to Pay Online or Over the Phone? Our attorneys can assist you nationwide.

A home is one of the most expensive purchases you’ll ever make. Many homeowners, especially given the current financial climate, struggle to make their mortgage payments. As such, it wasn’t surprising when many hardworking consumers began to contact us at Bradly/Grombacher LLP to see whether it was lawful for financial instructions to charge them even more money on top of the mortgage payments simply to make a payment over the phone on via the internet.

You May Be Entitled to a Refund if You Were Charged Pay-to-Pay Fees

Most financial service companies give consumers several options to make their monthly mortgage payments. Many people pay their bills today online or by telephone because such payments often provide records of the payment, and the ability to pay bills electronically saves the hassle of writing checks and hoping they are received on time. Yet oftentimes such payments come with charges between $5-$20, which quickly add up.Deceptive advertising refers to a company’s use of false, misleading or confusing statements when promoting a product or service. These advertising practices false claims violate consumer protection laws, which prohibit companies from engaging in unfair business practices to outsell competitors.

Serving Clients Nationwide

In July 2017, the government’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warned banks about these surcharges. The agency’s director Richard Cordray said, “The Bureau is warning companies about tricking consumers into more expensive fees when they pay bills by phone. We are concerned that companies are misleading consumers about pay-by-phone fees or keeping them in the dark about much cheaper or no-cost payment options.”

View the CFPB Compliance Bulletin by clicking here. Despite this, many banks still continue to charge homeowners for these fees. Under State and Federal laws, these “pay-to-pay” fees may be unlawful.

Additionally, several states have enacted consumer protection statutes that either limit or prohibit so called convenience fees.

Section 1692f(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits debt collectors from collecting “any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1). Most standard deeds and mortgage agreements do not permit these charges or place restrictions on the amounts that can be charged.

States where pay-by-phone fees for mortgage payments are restricted include:

  • California
  • Florida
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • North Carolina
  • Texas
  • Washington
  • West Virginia

Do You Need Legal Assistance?

Finally, most home mortgages written in the United States are backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. These agencies have rules protecting borrowers from undisclosed fees.

If you were charged pay-to-pay convenience or pay-by-phone fees, you may be entitled to a refund of those charges.

Highly Esteemed & Accomplished



Galvan v. Doe

$6,750,000

By Grombacher February 20, 2026
California Telehealth Company Facing Class Action Over Alleged Physician Misclassification and Unpaid Wages Westlake Village, California – A new class and collective action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Mochi Medical CA, P.C., Mochi Medical, P.A., and Mochi Health Corp., alleging widespread wage-and-hour violations stemming from the alleged misclassification of healthcare providers as independent contractors. The complaint asserts that the defendants operate a telehealth platform for weight management services and a related professional medical group that provides prescription services based on referrals from that platform. According to the lawsuit, the companies uniformly classified physicians and other healthcare professionals as independent contractors despite exercising significant control over their work. The named plaintiff, Dr. Frank Cioppettini, worked remotely as a licensed physician for the defendants from approximately December 10, 2024, to February 14, 2025. The complaint alleges that during this time, he and similarly situated providers were subject to company-directed policies, scheduling requirements, supervision, and performance evaluation, factors that, under California’s “ABC test,” may indicate employee status rather than independent contractor status.  The lawsuit contends that by misclassifying healthcare providers, the defendants failed to provide key protections guaranteed to employees under California law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These alleged violations include failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all wages owed, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages upon termination, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 for unpaid overtime; failure to pay minimum and all wages; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair business practices. According to the complaint, the defendants maintained uniform scheduling and timekeeping practices across states, and the alleged policies were administered from California. The proposed class includes healthcare professionals classified as contractors whose employment relationships were governed by California law within four years prior to the filing of the action. The lawsuit further alleges that hundreds of providers may have been affected. “This action challenges a uniform scheme to misclassify healthcare providers as independent contractors, despite Defendants’ pervasive control over their work and integration of their services into Defendants’ core business. As a result of this misclassification, employees were unlawfully denied overtime, minimum wages, expense reimbursement, accurate wage statements, and timely final pay,” said attorney Marcus Bradley. The case is styled Frank Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical CA, P.C ., et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-01260, USDC Northern District of California.
By Grombacher November 3, 2025
Spotting false advertising in 2025 is tougher than ever. Bradley/Grombacher breaks down how to protect yourself and take legal action.

Success Stories

Reviews

We highly recommend!



“Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

- Kylie & Daniel C.

Schedule a Free Consultation



Contact Us