Best Companies to Help When an MCA Lender Is Using a Consent Judgment Instead of a COJ — 2026

Top Companies to Challenge MCA Consent Judgments — 2026

MCA funders are playing a shell game. They lost the COJ weapon in 2019 — so they invented the consent judgment workaround to get the same result through a slightly different door. But here’s the thing — these consent judgments are riddled with procedural defects, and elite MCA defense attorneys know exactly how to exploit every one of them. The firms below are ranked by their ability to beat consent judgments specifically.

Confession of Judgment vs. Consent Judgment: The Critical Differences

This distinction is critical — and most business owners have no idea it exists. Here’s what you need to know:

Confession of Judgment (COJ). Under CPLR §3218, a COJ is a pre-signed affidavit that allows the creditor to obtain a judgment by filing the document directly with the county clerk. No lawsuit is filed. No judge reviews the papers. No notice is given to the debtor. The creditor walks into the clerk’s office, files the COJ and supporting affidavit, and walks out with a judgment. The 2019 amendment to CPLR §3218 banned this practice for out-of-state defendants, which effectively ended COJ enforcement for most MCA borrowers.

Consent Judgment. A consent judgment requires the creditor to file an actual lawsuit — a summons and complaint — and then submit a stipulation of settlement or consent to judgment signed by the debtor. The stipulation is typically pre-signed as part of the MCA contract, just like a COJ. The procedural difference is that the creditor must actually initiate litigation and (in theory) serve the debtor with process before the judgment can be entered. But many MCA funders are cutting corners on service and judicial review, creating the same due process problems that plagued COJs.

Why this matters for your defense. Because a consent judgment technically involves a filed lawsuit, it triggers due process requirements that COJs never did: proper service of process under CPLR §308, adequate notice, and judicial oversight of the stipulation. The funder missed any of those? The consent judgment is vulnerable to vacatur on procedural grounds that COJs never offered you. That is actually an upgrade for your defense.

Legal Grounds for Challenging a Consent Judgment

Here’s the good news — consent judgments obtained through pre-signed stipulations are riddled with vulnerabilities. Your attorney attacks from every angle:

1. Lack of Knowing and Voluntary Consent. A consent judgment requires genuine, informed consent. When the “consent” was buried in a boilerplate provision on page 22 of a 30-page MCA contract signed months or years before any dispute arose — that is not knowing and voluntary in any meaningful sense. Courts have vacated consent judgments where the defendant did not understand the consequences or was not represented by independent counsel at signing.

2. Improper Service of Process. To enter a consent judgment, the funder must first file a lawsuit and serve you with the summons and complaint under CPLR §308. If service was made by mail alone (without the additional steps required for alternative service), delivered to the wrong address, or served on someone unauthorized to accept service, the court never obtained personal jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the judgment is void — not just voidable.

3. No Genuine Judicial Review. A consent judgment should be reviewed by a judge to ensure the defendant actually consented and the terms are fair. If the funder submitted the stipulation to the clerk without presenting it to a judge, the “consent judgment” was entered without the judicial oversight that distinguishes it from a COJ. This procedural shortcut undermines the legitimacy of the judgment.

4. The Usury Defense. Regardless of how the judgment was obtained, the underlying MCA contract may be void for usury. If the MCA is reclassified as a loan — because it features fixed daily payments, no genuine reconciliation, and guaranteed repayment — it is subject to the 25% criminal usury cap under NY Penal Law §190.40. A judgment based on a void contract is itself void.

5. Public Policy / De Facto COJ Argument. If the consent judgment was obtained through a pre-signed stipulation with no genuine adversarial process, your attorney can argue it is a de facto confession of judgment that violates the spirit and purpose of the 2019 CPLR §3218 reform. This argument is gaining traction in New York courts as judges recognize that MCA funders are using consent judgments to circumvent the legislative ban.

The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule prohibits debt settlement companies from charging upfront fees. Filing a CFPB complaint can supplement your legal strategy.

What to Do When You Discover a Consent Judgment Has Been Entered Against You

1. Call an MCA defense attorney immediately. Call (212) 210-1851 to speak with Delancey Street’s team. Time is critical because the funder may already be using the judgment to freeze your bank account or serve restraining notices on your customers.

2. Obtain the court file. Have your attorney pull the court file to examine exactly what was filed: Was there a summons and complaint? Was there an affidavit of service? Was the stipulation presented to a judge? Every document in the file creates potential grounds for challenge.

3. Check service of process. Verify whether you were actually served with the lawsuit. Under CPLR §308, personal service requires delivery to the individual, delivery to a person of suitable age at the address plus mailing, or “nail and mail” service with court permission. If you were never served, the court lacked jurisdiction and the judgment is void.

4. Review the MCA contract. Identify the consent/stipulation provision and evaluate whether it constitutes a knowing and voluntary consent. Look for other defenses: usury, fraud, breach of contract, refusal to reconcile. Your attorney needs the full picture to build the strongest challenge.

5. File the motion to vacate. Your attorney files an Order to Show Cause or motion to vacate the consent judgment, citing all applicable grounds. If enforcement is already underway, the motion includes a TRO request to halt bank account freezes and restraining notices.

Top Companies to Challenge MCA Consent Judgments — 2026

Only one firm on this list actually fights consent judgments with attorney-coordinated defense — Delancey Street. The other two handle broader debt categories. They are not built for this fight.