Holly Ann Carnaggio | Holly Ann Bagayawa
Holly Carnaggio's Complaint Against NetDivorce:
Holly Ann Carnaggio | Holly Ann Bagayawa filed a complaint against NetDivorce with the Better Business Bureau on July 9 2021. Her complaint reads as follows:
Transaction date was around, May 19, 2021, I paid $129 for this service. This service has been somewhat helpful a lot of assistance is needed to help out with the process due to the nature of the service! The customer service representatives are rude and impatient and don’t like to be asked a lot of questions; stating that, “I’m waisting (sic) their time”, and that, “I don’t know how to follow directions!” I have been verbally abused and blocked out of my account! I asked for a full refund due to the way I’ve been mistreated and they continued the verbal abuse stating, “Your that kind of person who doesn’t want to pay someone!” They refused and offered a partial refund! I’d like a full refund for emotional distress that they have caused!
Summary of NetDivorce Response:
- Holly Ann Carnaggio has intentionally left out of her complaint all of the facts that led to her dispute with NetDivorce. She apparently wants readers of her complaint to think that the lies in her complaint not only happened but happened without any cause. NetDivorce will prove to you below EXACTLY what happened. We’ll prove it with an image Holly Ann Carnaggio sent us, the court record and with her own written words. Read on.
- NetDivorce has gone far above and beyond the call of duty in the divorce of Holly Ann Carnaggio. NetDivorce has never failed to perform in any way for Holly Carnaggio. When she was asked to provide any indication that we had failed her, she was unable to respond. We provided her with the first two of the three batches of fully prepared legal documents with custom written instructions. Since she hired us, we have meticulously responded to 39 emails, 17 live chats and 7 phone calls from Holly Ann Carnaggio – all within a 7-week time frame. Does that sound like a company that doesn’t “like to be asked a lot of questions?” All written communications with Holly Carnaggio are included below in date sequence.
- When Holly Carnaggio states that NetDivorce service has been “somewhat helpful,” that is a true statement about the service NetDivorce provided to her. It is abundantly clear from her own emails to us that she genuinely appreciated our work UNTIL she tried to blame NetDivorce for something that she herself had caused and lied about to cover up. That is what she doesn’t want you to know. Read on.
- At no time did any person at NetDivorce tell Holly Carnaggio that she was wasting our time. Read her emails below and you will conclude that she would have complained by email immediately about any such mistreatment. No such email exists.
- At no time did any person at NetDivorce tell Holly Carnaggio that she doesn’t know how to follow directions. Read her emails below and you will conclude that she would have complained by email immediately about any such mistreatment. No such email exists.
- In fact, Holly Carnaggio does not follow directions. In one important instance, she admits in writing that she didn’t follow our instructions.
- At no time did any person at NetDivorce “verbally abuse” Holly Carnaggio. Read her emails below and you will conclude that she would have complained by email immediately about any such mistreatment. No such email exists.
- We blocked Holly Carnaggio from her NetDivorce account on July 8 2021 because in a phone call on that date, after NetDivorce objected to her blaming us for an action we did not cause, she threatened to log into her NetDivorce account and delete all information in her account so that we could not prove that we had done any work for her at all and we’d have to refund all of her money. She could not have deleted all data as much of it is locked for security and such legal reasons, but she could have deleted some data we wanted to protect.
- When we blocked Holly Carnaggio from her NetDivorce account on July 8 2021, we offered her a refund of unused fees (1/3 of our total fee). We had done two thirds of the work in her case. She declined that offer.
- Holly Carnaggio fails to disclose in her complaint that NetDivorce then offered her a full refund on July 9 2021 with one condition. NetDivorce’s condition was, “If you can show us any mistake we have made in the preparation of your docs, tell us specifically in writing what it is and we’ll issue you a complete $129 refund.” As Holly Carnaggio could not provide any proof of any wrongdoing on NetDivorce’s part, she could not provide such a statement and did not qualify for a full refund. BTW, our Terms of Service certainly did not require us to make that full refund offer, but we did anyway as a matter of integrity. NetDivorce has remained paid for its excellent work.
Facts in the Divorce of Holly Ann Carnaggio:
May 19 2021: Holly Carnaggio hired NetDivorce on May 19 2021 and paid our industry-low flat fee of $129.
May 20 2021: Holly Carnaggio completed her NetDivorce online interview and downloaded the first batch of fully prepared legal docs to be filed at the San Bernardino court with her court filing fee of $435.
NetDivorce proofread Holly Carnaggio’s first batch of legal documents and sent her an email advising that they were ready to be filed at the San Bernardino court.
Due to C-19, NetDivorce added additional filing instructions to our normal proofreading email. Here are those additional filing instructions:
“The court is basically open, but only until noon each day. Masks and distancing, of course. There is in-person filing and also filing through drop boxes located in the court lobby. If you file using the drop box, you need to include a 9 X 12 stamped addressed envelope for the court to use to get the filed docs back to you. If you use the drop box, include also a personal check for $435 payable to “Clerk of the Superior Court.” No debit or credit cards through the drop box.
You can follow this highly changeable situation at https://www.sb-court.org/general-information/covid-19-court-operations-during-covid-19-pandemic
E-filing or physical filing is also available through https://www.directlegal.com/ , our preferred court-filer.”
May 21 2021: Holly Carnaggio submitted her first batch of docs to the court in San Bernardino by depositing them in the court’s C-19 drop box with her $435 check for the court filing fee. Instead of using the recommended 9 X 12 stamped addressed return envelope, she used a USPS Priority Mail pouch that requires a scan when picked up.
Around the middle of May, the San Bernardino court began to develop a backlog of filed cases that eventually got to be 6 weeks long. The reasons given by the court for this delay were a backlog of cases from the time the court had been closed due to C-19 as well as severe staff shortages. These delays also occurred at this time in other courts around the state.
May 23 2021 – July 5 2021: Holly Carnaggio was in contact with NetDivorce every few days to complain to us about the court’s backlog. First, we advised her to sit tight. We checked with our panel of lawyers. Everyone was experiencing these delays. It was going to be a while. There wasn’t anything she could do to speed the process. We also advised her that the court clerks generally do not like to be harassed. We assumed that she was harassing them more than she was harassing us.
When our sound advice was no longer enough (June 28-“as of this morning and $500 poorer my case still hasn’t been filed!”), we advised her to contact the Presiding Family Law Judge at San Bernardino to see if there was any further info available about the delay. She attempted to contact the presiding judge and they blew her off.
There really was not a lot that could be done, and we knew this. It’s also a real bad idea to annoy the court. All of our other clients caught up in these delays were patient. Not Holly Carnaggio.
Under further pressure and blame (July 3-“This whole system is so ridiculous! I can’t get any help.”), we then advised her to contact her local California State Assembly Representative to try to get him or her to contact the court and see if they could get any additional info. She did, and the office of her State Rep also got blown off by the court on multiple occasions. We knew that there really wasn’t anything she could have done but be patient and not harass the court clerks.
Every time Holly Carnaggio called, live chatted or emailed, NetDivorce checked the court’s online case tracking system to see if her case had been filed.
June 15 2021: In a phone call on this date, Holly Carnaggio was calmer than normal and apologized for the frequent phone calls and repetitive questions. We already had noticed that she asked the same questions over and over again. She would typically ask a question on Live Chat with Peter and then an hour later, she’d ask the same question in a phone call or email with Ed. All calls, chats and emails are logged to her account so that we both always know what’s happening in a case.
We told her that this was fine and that this is what we did. We answer hundreds of client questions every day and a few more would not matter. Also she had an unusual situation in the filing delay that was certainly not her fault. We understood that it was frustrating.
She then told us that she had a learning disability in which she could not absorb information in writing and required frequent verbal reminders of some answers. We advised her that we were not experts in learning disorders and that it may have been a better idea to hire a lawyer if she had known about this problem, not an online divorce company that relies heavily on written instructions. She advised us that she could not afford a lawyer.
July 5 2021: We again checked the court’s online case tracking system and found that Holly Carnaggio’s case had been filed. The manual filing had been done within the prior couple of days (since we had checked the system the prior time) but the legal filing date had been back-dated to May 24. Her case was assigned case # FAMSB2100964.
We immediately advised Holly Carnaggio of these facts by email. We also advised that she would be receiving her filed docs back from the court by mail within a few days, providing that the filing clerk used her Priority Mail pouch, which we knew they may not, and that the USPS would collect the pouch without a scan.
Holly Carnaggio logged into her NetDivorce account, entered her case number and downloaded the second of the three batches of fully prepared legal docs.
NetDivorce proofread the second batch of legal docs and sent its proofreading email to Holly Carnaggio, advising her that she had to wait for the court to return her filed first batch of legal docs before having the first and second batches served on her spouse.
July 8 2021: Holly Carnaggio received her filed docs back from the court by mail.
There was extra documentation in the envelope. The extra documentation was claimed by Holly Carnaggio to be the fault of NetDivorce even though NetDivorce obviously has no control whatsoever over what documentation the court returns to litigants. (July 8 email from Holly Carnaggio: “This is an extra step that will probably cost extra and take longer not sure wasn’t notified of these forms… “)
Holly Carnaggio contacted NetDivorce by Live Chat, email and phone. On each occasion she blamed NetDivorce for the extra documentation included in her return mail from the court.
Here is the transcript of the Live Chat session between Holly Carnaggio and Peter from NetDivorce blaming NetDivorce for the court having included an extra document in her mail:
Peter: Hello. How may I help you?
July 8 2021 (continued): Within minutes of the chat with Peter, Holly Carnaggio was on the phone with Ed at NetDivorce. At this point, Ed had no idea about the chat session with Peter.
Almost the exact same conversation was then had between Holly Carnaggio and Ed on the phone as she had with Peter (above). Holly Carnaggio repeated that she was concerned that her case would now be screwed up. Ed inquired on what basis that could possibly happen just because a court clerk had made a mistake by enclosing a completely unconnected document in her mail by mistake. The enclosed document had nothing to do with divorce and nothing to do with her divorce case. It was included by a court clerk in error and she should throw it away and forget about it. It had absolutely nothing to do with her case.
So now, both Peter and Ed had advised Holly Carnaggio clearly that this mistake, likely made by a court clerk, had nothing to do with her case and that it could not possibly mess up her case.
Both Ed and Peter wondered why Holly Carnaggio could possibly think that her case could now be messed up by something that clearly had nothing to do with her case.
Both Ed and Peter independently became suspicious that Holly Carnaggio knew of some problem in her case and was setting up NetDivorce as somehow being the cause of that problem.
We both asked Holly Carnaggio if she knew of any such problem and if she had any suspicion that NetDivorce had done ANYTHING wrong in her case up to that point in time.
Holly Carnaggio refused on multiple occasions to answer either of those questions. If there was no problem, why wouldn’t she say that there was no problem? If she thought that NetDivorce had not caused any problem in her case, why wouldn’t she just say so? Saying so would not harm her in any way. But she refused.
Accordingly, NetDivorce sent Holly Carnaggio an email to attempt to resolve the issue. See the third NetDivorce to Holly email of July 8 below. This email flatly told Holly Carnaggio that NetDivorce wanted to be sure that she was not claiming that we had failed to do anything in her case BEFORE we proceed.
She could either tell us in writing that we had not failed to perform in any way to that point in time or if she thought we had failed in some way, we would happily issue her a refund of unused fees – one third of our total fee. Her choice.
July 9 2021: Holly Carnaggio advised NetDivorce that she no longer required our services, that she would not state that we had not failed to perform in any way and that she wanted a full refund of all fees because of “the way she’s been treated.”
NetDivorce responded by telling Holly Carnaggio that, “We’re absolutely certain that a person like you would prefer us to become unpaid for our excellent work.” We also provided her with a copy of our Refund Policy, which requires that we fail to perform in some way.
July 11 2021: Holly Carnaggio filed her BBB complaint against NetDivorce.
Communications in the Divorce of Holly Ann Carnaggio:
Following is a list of all written communications between NetDivorce and Holly Carnaggio.
Publishing them is necessary because Holly Carnaggio has lied by stating that NetDivorce has told her that she was wasting our time and that she did not know how to follow directions and that she was verbally abused. Those events never happened.
You should read some or all of these communications and draw your own conclusion as to whether a company that responded to a client so completely and carefully would have engaged in the abuse she claims.
Additionally, you will see from her emails that Holly Carnaggio has sought throughout the process to blame NetDivorce for EVERYTHING that happened during the process. It is even NetDivorce’s fault that she did not know how much postage to attach to her stamped addressed return envelope.
If NetDivorce had verbally abused Holly Carnaggio in anything like the way she claims, she would have complained about it immediately in emails. She didn’t.
—–Original Message—– From: Holly
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:05 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: MESSAGE FOR NETDIVORCE SUPPORT
> What is my user ID
On May 19, 2021, at 13:31, NetDivorce, LLC <[email protected]> wrote:
> 32189. Right after you paid, the user id was displayed in huge bold print on the very next page with a recommendation that you jot it down and keep it in a safe place. Then at the exact same time, the account opening email, which included the user id and password was sent to you. The same page told you that if you didn’t see that email in a few moments, it would be in your junk folder.
> Regards, Ed
—–Original Message—– From: Hollie Carnaggio
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 5:23 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Spouse’s income
> I do not know what my husband’s income is, do I need to ask him?
On May 19, 2021, at 14:41, NetDivorce, LLC <[email protected]> wrote:
> You don’t NEED to ask him, but if you can do so without any difficulty, it’s not a bad idea. You can tell him that the online interview is asking you for that info. The court definitely looks for that info.
> Tell him that it’s asking you for an estimate if you don’t know his income. That may cause him to provide an estimate, which may or may not be accurate.
> You haven’t yet completed the spousal support section. If you’re not requesting spousal support, this whole question becomes much less important. If you are asking for spousal, then the judge will be relying on you to provide at least an estimate of his income.
> If he provides an estimate, great, we’ll use it unless you think it is not accurate.
> If he won’t provide an estimate, can you estimate it? If you think you can provide a reasonable estimate, then enter that.
> Regards, Ed
From: Hollie Carnaggio
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 5:54 PM
To: NetDivorce, LLC
Subject: Re: 32189
He won’t tell me he is very dishonest and I’d not like to put myself in that
OK. Just put your best estimate.
I can see now that you’ve indicated no spousal support. SO this is a short
marriage with no children and no spousal support. So, only your spouse will
see your estimate of his income. That estimate will not be filed at court.
From: Hollie Carnaggio
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 5:58 PM
To: NetDivorce, LLC
Subject: Re: 32189
What are my installment payments?
Installment payments are recurring monthly payments to some creditor. So
typically they would be monthly credit card payments, car payments, student
loan payments or maybe monthly payments for a personal loan.
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 10:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: MESSAGE FOR NETDIVORCE SUPPORT
I thought I was filing for uncontested divorce the paperwork doesn’t
You’re filing for divorce, which the paperwork indicates. You can’t dictate
that the case remains uncontested. Your spouse will determine whether or not
your case remains uncontested.
I’ve proofread your first batch of docs , which you downloaded in pdf format yesterday evening. Once you have followed the instructions that print out up front in that batch, they will be ready to be filed at the Family Law filing window at the Superior Court in San Bernardino.
BTW, if you need to, you can still make changes before you file. Log into your NetDivorce account and click on Things Have Changed. That will open up your interview again in the Client Menu on the left of your screen. You can click on any interview page and make changes on it. Bear in mind that a few basic items are locked for security reasons. Just let me know if you bump into any of them. But most items can be changed by you before you have filed the case. After you have finished with the last page that needs attention, just click on I Am Finished Making Changes, and that will lead you to re-download the revised batch. It just takes a few seconds to download.
Of course, if you don’t need to make any changes, you can also just save the downloaded pdf file to your hard drive or other medium and print it any number of times.
Follow the printed instructions. They are very good and detailed. Consequently, they are a little long, but really are not as bad as they first seem and they definitely keep you away from all of the common pitfalls. Check each box as you go.
The court is basically open, but only until noon each day. Masks and distancing, of course. There is in-person filing and also filing through drop boxes located in the court lobby. If you file using the drop box, you need to include a 9 X 12 stamped addressed envelope for the court to use to get the filed docs back to you. If you use the drop box, include also a personal check for $435 payable to “Clerk of the Superior Court.” No debit or credit cards through the drop box.
You can follow this highly changeable situation at https://www.sb-court.org/general-information/covid-19-court-operations-during-covid-19-pandemic
E-filing or physical filing is also available through https://www.directlegal.com/ , our preferred court-filer.
As always, never hesitate to contact me should any question or issue arise.
Ed West, Managing Partner
On May 20, 2021, at 08:46, NetDivorce, LLC <[email protected]> wrote:
Good question. Yes, but not by much. Here’s what it says at https://www.sb-court.org/locations/san-bernardino/family-law-division-san-bernardino-district
Drop Box InformationSo, it does not say that 4 PM is the latest you can use the drop box. You may be able to use it later than 4 PM and up until the main courthouse door is closed. I can’t find anything that says when that is.Just tried to reach family law at (909) 521-3136 but they’ve only just opened and they put me on hold straight away. You might try to call and see what they say about when is the latest time you can get access to the drop box.Alternatively, directlegal.com offers fax filing at SB. No e-filing is available yet.Regards,Ed
Looks like you have downloaded a duplicate first batch of docs, without any changes (at least no changes that appear in the first batch). If that is so, you are still good to file. I refer you back to my earlier emails and to the instructions that will print out up front with that batch.
As always, never hesitate to contact me should any question or issue arise.
Ed West, Managing Partner
Thank you for your continued patience!
## New ticket ##
Holly ([email protected])
Thu, 05/20/21 7:51 pm
Message: Did I understand correctly the forms have to be printed on recycled paper?
Ticket created while on: https://california.netdivorce.com/interview/intro.aspx
On May 20, 2021, at 18:45, NetDivorce, LLC <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, but these days all paper you can buy is recycled. Ed
Also will a regular envelope work for the paperwork and enclosed self addressed stamped envelope, or do you recommend a Manila envelope for both?
Holly rated the chat as good
What parental relationship? There are no minor children in your case.
Peter: I don’t understand. As far as we are aware, there is nothing wrong in your case. Are you aware of some problem in your case that you haven’t told us about?
On Jul 8, 2021, at 15:57, NetDivorce, LLC <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,We want to make sure that you have not alleged that NetDivorce has failed to perform in any way in your case up to this point in time BEFORE we proceed.We understand that when you received your filed first batch of docs back from the court after its 6 week delay, which delay had nothing to do with NetDIvorce, the package contained information about a Petition to Determine Parental Responsibility. That is a document that assesses parentage when parents of a minor child are not married. It doesn’t apply to your case. It has no connection whatsoever to your case. Someone at the court must have made a mistake in including that document. We don’t know why.You asked us whether you had to do anything with this document and why we had not told you about it. You’re entitled to ask us that. We advised you of the nature of the document and that it was not connected in any way to your case on 4 separate occasions – once from Peter on Live Chat today, twice from me by email today and at least twice from me in a phone call today.That should have cause you to call the court to inquire of those who created the problem why they had done so.It is clear to us that you do not believe what you are being told repeatedly by us and it is also clear that you are a person who quickly and consistently seeks to blame others for what happens to you. There have been several examples of this in our dealing with you to date.In your live chat today with Peter, you stated, “I hope this doesn’t mean the whole thing is screwed up (that is my concern).” You did not, and would not, explain why you thought that an error made by a court clerk (you knew that by the time you stated this) would have or could have caused your whole case to be screwed up.When Peter reasonably asked you, “ Are you alleging that ND has failed to perform in any regard?” you declined to answer and left the chat session without saying any more. You also declined to answer that question when I asked it of you today.We don’t know if you think that there is something in your case that you suspect will be an actual possible problem such that you are laying the groundwork for us to be blamed for it, but that won’t happen.You may either provide us in writing with an unconditional statement that you believe we have not failed to perform in any way in your case or we will issue you a refund of the unused portion of our fee and you may seek assistance elsewhere.You have two of the three batches of legal docs to date. Accordingly, we offer a refund of one third of our $129 fee, $43.Either forward us your written statement or tell us in writing to issue the refund.Ed West, Managing Partner
On Jul 8, 2021, at 16:25, Hollie Carnaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
I am not blaming anyone for anything I’m just trying to cross all my “t’s” and dot all my “i’s”Hollybug
On Jul 9, 2021, at 08:54, NetDivorce, LLC <[email protected]> wrote:
We know you’re not blaming anyone for anything – at this time. No one has said that you are. We want to keep it that way – unless you are in fact blaming us for something or intending to do so.Yesterday, after we had addressed and completely answered your question about 4 or 5 times, you stated, in relation to an error by a court clerk that has absolutely nothing to do with NetDivorce, ““I hope this doesn’t mean the whole thing is screwed up (that is my concern).”Did you call the court to tell them the same thing. No, of course not.When asked on live chat, “Are you alleging that ND has failed to perform in any regard?” you refused to respond. You refused to respond when I asked you the same question on the phone. You’ve refused to answer in 3 emails this morning.That makes us suspect that you have some unknown problem in your case that you are not telling us about and that you are lining us up for liability in the event that problem becomes apparent when your case goes to a hearing or to a judge. Otherwise, if we have performed correctly and you are in fact “not blaming anyone,” why wouldn’t you answer our simple innocent question?Here are your options. We’ve added one:1. If you can show us any mistake we have made in the preparation of your docs, tell us specifically in writing what it is and we’ll issue you a complete $129 refund.2. Tell us unconditionally in writing that we have not failed to perform in any way in your case up to this date and we’ll proceed.3. Request in writing the refund of the $43 in unused fees.There would be no point to your providing us with any response that is not clearly and unconditionally one of the above.Ed West, Managing Partner
- I did call the court and the supervisor confirmed it was a mistake also I talked to my mom who is recently divorced (68 years old) and they gave her one of those papers too! It appears they just automatically throw it in to everyone’s! I’m good I’ll go it alone from here on you are very mean and condescending, I feel like I’m walking on egg shells every time I talk to you! Nobody deserves to be treated that way and I’ll accept nothing less that a full refund for the way I’ve been treated!Hollybug
On Jul 9, 2021, at 10:19, NetDivorce, LLC <[email protected]> wrote:
We’re absolutely certain that a person like you would prefer us to become unpaid for our excellent work.Here’s our refund policy to which you agreed:
- REFUNDS: In conjunction with the NetDivorce Guarantee, our refund policy is based upon a service failure by NetDivorce. A service failure by NetDivorce is defined as one or more of our prepared forms being rejected for filing by the court twice in succession for the same defect. That defect must be the fault of NetDivorce. Any document rejection by the court because of (or partially because of) your content or your request(s) on any document is not the fault of NetDivorce. If any document rejection occurs due to the fault of NetDivorce, NetDivorce reserves the right to attempt to correct the error once. NetDivorce also reserves the right to request documentary proof (which is ALWAYS provided by the court) of the reasons for the rejection. You must request a refund within 30 days of the second rejection. The refunded amount will be of unused fees. Please understand that your change of mind or your spouse’s change of mind is not a service failure by NetDivorce. Please do not hire NetDivorce unless you are certain that you want to be the Petitioner and that both you and your spouse are ready to proceed with an uncontested divorce. NetDivorce incurs costs to earn your business and incurs costs and provides valuable benefits after you have hired us but before you have downloaded any prepared forms. Please be aware that NetDivorce’s refund policy is entirely consistent with our major competitors’ refund policies and the ethical refund policies of the ABA’s Rules of Professional Conduct
Analysis of Complaint of Holly Ann Carnaggio
Just so that readers are aware – the Better Business Bureau does not vet complaints. It will take any adverse complaint against any company in order to assist it to sell its advertising services to that company. The BBB requires no proof of anything in a complaint.
NetDivorce’s pre-internet company was a “member” of the BBB for 18 years. We know them and their practices very well. We testified in the US Attorney’s racketeering investigation of the SoCal BBB back in the 90’s. NetDivorce will never hire the BBB again.
The BBB has no clue what is in NetDivorce’s response or how dishonest Holly Carnaggio’s complaint is. Read on and you will know far more about this complaint than the BBB.
Holly Carnaggio’s Purpose
Obviously, Holly Carnaggio’s intent in filing her BBB complaint against NetDivorce was to harm NetDivorce’s business reputation and income. Remember that NetDivorce did not fail in any way to provide excellent service to Holly Carnaggio. When asked, she could not provide a single thing we had done wrong or had failed to do in her case.
Because she is simply trying to harm a company that helped her and did her no harm, you may conclude that Holly Carnaggio is not a very nice person.
Thankfully, with an industry low flat fee of $129, with no monthly fees (like most others), with no up-selling EVER, with the absolute best online divorce software and with all work and client support provided by two case workers (Ed and Peter) with 40 years each of expertise in California uncontested divorce (that’s 40 years EACH, NOT combined), our income is bulletproof.
To our certain knowledge, there are only three honest and competent online divorce companies in the California online divorce market. Their complete fees are $129 (that’s NetDivorce), $299 and $1100. That’s why NetDivorce’s income continues to expand more during C-19 than at any other time in its history.
We do REAL good work and provide huge value to our clients with our software, expertise and vast experience. No one in the industry has our combination of proprietary wicked-cool software and vast knowledge, and our clients love it. Even Holly Carnaggio did until her personality problems took over.
NetDivorce uses client complaint like this one (the first in over 3 years) as learning experiences for divorce consumers who are interested in our services for an uncontested California divorce.
Obviously, everyone knows that there are difficult, dishonest and just plain nasty people in the world. Everyone also knows that the divorce process is a difficult one. NetDivorce’s job, during this difficult and stressful time for our clients, is to provide our clients not only expert service and support but also realistic and unemotional support and advice.
Some clients won’t permit that to happen. If you consider that you may be one of those divorce consumers, you should definitely not hire NetDivorce.
Holly Carnaggio intended to harm NetDivorce for no reason. However, we think she also had a much more personal and dishonest intent regarding NetDivorce from day one. Read on.
NetDivorce will return the favor in relation to Holly Carnaggio’s reputation and income. By filing her complaint with no proof of any wrongdoing, Holly Carnaggio has authorized the exposure of her own levels of integrity and honesty.
Companies and individuals who are interested in hiring Holly Carnaggio in the future or doing any type of business with Holly Carnaggio in the future should have the same opportunity to assess her personality, honesty and integrity that divorce consumers have been provided by Holly Carnaggio’s complaint against NetDivorce.
The C-19 Filing Delays
It was certainly not Holly Carnaggio’s fault that she happened to file her case at the exact time the San Bernardino court developed a C-19 backlog of 6 weeks. Nor was it NetDivorce’s fault.
We certainly didn’t blame her. She did blame NetDivorce.
Nevertheless, NetDivorce provided Holly Carnaggio with full competent and professional support during that frustrating time.
When Holly Carnaggio eventually received her filed paperwork back from the court in the mail on July 8 2021, included in the mailing was an “Overview of a Petition to Determine Parental Relationship.“ See the image above scanned to NetDivorce by Holly Carnaggio.
This is a document that does not apply to Holly Carnaggio’s divorce. In rapid succession on July 8, Holly Carnaggio contacted NetDivorce on Live Chat, phone and email.
On each occasion, she pretended to be surprised at the inclusion in her mail of the extra document. She complained about the extra document being returned to her. She suggested on each occasion that the inclusion of this document was the fault of NetDivorce. See her July 8 email – “This is an extra step that will probably cost extra and take longer not sure wasn’t notified of these forms…” She’s accusing NetDivorce of failing to notify her of this form, which she claims will now cost her more money and take extra time.
She is setting up NetDivorce for an accusation of negligence, fraud and fault for ANYTHING that will now go wrong in her case.
There is no other reasonable interpretation of her claims in live chat, on the phone or by email on July 8. On live Chat, when we assured her the document didn’t apply to her, she immediately stated, “I hope this doesn’t mean the whole thing is screwed up (that is my concern).”
NetDivorce repeatedly assured her on live chat, email and by phone that the document in question had nothing to do with her case, would not cost her any money, would not take extra time and would have no effect on her case at all.
We assumed reasonably that the insertion of the non-applicable document into her returned filed divorce papers was just a simple mistake made by the filing clerk. The document in question was probably, or so we thought, on the clerk’s desk and was mistakenly and innocently scooped up when the filing clerk was packing the return envelope. No harm – no foul.
That was our reasonable professional opinion and that’s what we told Holly Carnaggio.
However, for some reason, she did not want that to be the complete explanation. Our explanation was to Holly Carnaggio’s benefit because it meant that there was nothing wrong in her case. Yet she clearly didn’t like our explanation. That seemed strange at the time.
Yet in her July 9 email to us, Holly had to make the extra document appear completely normal and run-of-the-mill. She stated, “I did call the court and the supervisor confirmed it was a mistake also I talked to my mom who is recently divorced (68 years old) and they gave her one of those papers too! It appears they just automatically throw it in to everyone’s!”
That’s complete nonsense. And it’s contradictory and indicative of a lie. If the inclusion o fthe extra document “was a mistake” according to the family law supervisor at the court, how could it also be that “they just automatically throw it in to everyone’s.” As it turned out, it was neither of these.
We can’t remember everything that’s happened in tens of thousands of cases over 40 years of time, but we cannot remember a single case (with an average of 2 filings per case) in which the court clerk EVER returned an additional document that did not apply to the case in question.
Yet here is Holly Carnaggio not only stating that it happened to both her and her mother but that the Family Law Supervisor told her that they automatically throw extra documents that don’t apply into every piece of returned mail. That’s simply not true. Why would the court do that at their own expense of time and money? It would also cause massive confusion for very many people. It doesn’t happen.
Holly is lying, but why?
Holly certainly didn’t plan on us getting the following image from the court’s online case tracking system.
Look at the top line of Holly’s case record. On July 2, a court clerk made an entry into Holly’s case that they provided her with an informational checklist for Judicial Council form FL-200. That’s the exact same form Holly claimed she and her mother and everyone else who has ever filed a case in San Bernardino has received from the court. It’s the same form as she scanned to us and that we re-produced above.
It’s the EXACT SAME FORM Holly blamed NetDivorce for not telling her about.
We’ve never seen such an entry in the court’s online case tracking system. Why would the court send a legal form that doesn’t apply, at its expense and labor, to every single case that’s ever been filed. And then, why would they also keep a record of it on their online system?
So, unlike Holly, NetDivorce actually did call the court on July 19 and asked to speak with a Family Law Supervisor. We asked her specifically about the last entry in case FAMSB2100964. She stated that it meant Holly had called in on July 2 and requested that that specific document be returned to her when the court returned her filed documents. We asked how she could tell that Holly had called in, and she said, “Because if she’d come in in person and asked for the document, we’d have just given it to her over the counter without it being part of the case record, but if we are requested to mail it, the transaction must be recorded in our system.”
Makes sense, huh? We were wrong. The court clerk did not make a mistake by enclosing the unnecessary document. Nor was that document also sent to Holly’s mom and everyone else who has ever filed at San Bernardino.
HOLLY CALLED IN ON JULY 2 AND SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE COURT TO SEND THAT DOCUMENT TO HER!
Funny how Holly never mentioned that fact when she was working us for a refund.
Let’s see, now. What was the first thing Holly said to NetDivorce in her July 8 email after she received in the mail the document she had actually requested herself from the court? Here’s what she said: “This is an extra step that will probably cost extra and take longer not sure wasn’t notified of these forms.” Extra step, more money, more time.
It’s all NetDivorce’s fault. We didn’t notify her that the unnecessary step was involved. That’s because we didn’t know that Holly had called the court on July 2 and requested that they send her that extra unnecessary document!
So we told her (reasonably but incorrectly) that it was a clerk error and that it meant nothing to her case. That’s not what she wanted to hear. She wanted to hear us apologizing for whatever had happened. Because she was ALWAYS working us for a refund.
What was the first thing Holly said after we told her in the July 8 chat that the clerk had made a mistake and that it was nothing to worry about? Oh yeah, “I hope this doesn’t mean the whole thing is screwed up (that is my concern).”
She was getting ready to make a full refund claim! She’s received two thirds of the legal documents and huge amounts of perfect support from NetDivorce. Everything that has happened has been NetDivorce’s fault. She thinks that if she accuses us of screwing up her case by somehow causing the additional non-divorce document to be returned to her with her case and then demands a refund, we might just give her a refund to get rid of her.
Gee, do you think Holly just might have worked this scam on other professional service businesses before?
Holly Carnaggio Lied to NetDivorce, the BBB and To You
Holly Carnaggio intended that an unknown number of California divorce consumers would be misled by her dishonest lying complaint against NetDivorce. As a result of being misled by her dishonesty, Holly Carnaggio has attempted to take money out of those defrauded divorce consumers’ pockets by causing them to hire more expensive online divorce companies instead of the bargain service, NetDivorce.
California divorce consumers who read her BBB complaint, but do not see our response to her complaint, may well now be defrauded out of extra fees by Holly Carnaggio’s dishonest and defamatory complaint against NetDivorce. That’s the type of person Holly Ann Carnaggio is.
Holly Carnaggio has made unsupported accusations of “verbal abuse” of her by NetDivorce without any reference to the proved facts of what actually happened in her case.
Her complaint may be the weakest we’ve ever seen. It contains no proof of any claims, just false accusations.
NetDivorce has exposed fully the dishonesty of Holly Carnaggio’s complaint in this response.
Holly lied in writing (her first July 8 email and July 8 Live Chat) about the receipt of the extra non-divorce document in the package she received back from the court by mail, she claims, on July 7.
She told NetDivorce that document was included in her return mail from the court as some type of expensive, time-consuming problem we caused by not telling her about it in advance – when she knew at that time that she had specifically requested of the court that it send her that document. The date on her request to the court was July 2, 6 days before she claims to be surprised that the extra document was enclosed because of something NetDivorce did or didn’t do.
NetDivorce disposed of that “problem” simply by telling her what appeared the most likely (though turned out to be incorrect) reason for the extra document. We told her accurately that the document had nothing to do with her case, it was a likely clerk error and that she should ignore it.
That wasn’t good enough for Holly’s intended purpose – a refund of her fee. She needed that extra document to be a problem and to be NetDivorce’s fault.
Holly had to turn the situation back to our fault. So she lied by claiming that she had checked with the court and was told that the court has always sent random non-applicable legal documents back in the mail to EVERYONE who has ever filed.
That makes no sense at all on the basis of cost, time taken by the clerks or the confusion that would obviously be created for a lot of court filers.
Holly Carnaggio then lied that her mother told her that she had also received extra random documents in her returned filing years before.
Holly Carnaggio lied about EVERYONE receiving random extra non-applicable documents back in the mail because she had to move blame back to NetDivorce in order to support her claim for a complete refund of her money.
Her primary dishonesty had failed to position her for a refund. NetDivorce had disposed of that lie easily. The only way she could think of to blame us again was in claiming that NetDivorce didn’t know that the court sent random extra non-applicable docs back to all filers – like NetDivorce’s first 40 years of business experience never happened.
Throughout all of these lies, Holly was unaware of one fact. The court had recorded her July 2 request for the extra document. She had no idea we’d see that entry.
There was no clerk error. The court does not send out random docs. Holly’s mother didn’t get random docs. None of NetDivorce’s clients for 40+ years has ever received random legal documents back in the mail.
NetDivorce didn’t cause that extra document to be included in her mailing or fail to disclose that it would happen.
Holly requested that random doc herself on July 2! She CAUSED that document to be sent to herself!!
Why? Well, what is the most likely reason? We conclude that Holly was ALWAYS refund-shopping.
Throughout all of her communications with NetDivorce, she is always looking for fault on our part. Right from the very beginning when seconds after hiring us she claimed in her very first email to us on May 19 that we had not provided her a user id, when we could prove that we had done so twice.
It was NetDivorce’s fault that her case took so long to get filed, that we included her mandatory Income and Expense Declaration, that we told her that she couldn’t use Priority Mail envelopes to get her docs back from the court, and that the court had included an extra document in her mailing that would cost more, take more time and screw up the rest of her case.
And what was the very last thing she said to NetDivorce in an email? “I’ll accept nothing less that a full refund for the way I’ve been treated!”
And what was the very last thing she said in her BBB complaint? “I’d like a full refund for emotional distress that they have caused!”
Holly lost her job in June. Her case became about getting as much work and support from NetDivorce as possible and then creating a “problem” that she could use to work NetDivorce for a refund.
This Method of Responding to Complaints Works!
This is not our first rodeo. We’ve been using this method of responding to client complaints for about 12 years. And it’s working!
12 years ago, we had 2 or 3 problem clients like Holly Carnaggio per year on average. We thought that this method of response would be a good learning experience for prospective clients. It not only shows the value of NetDivorce’s expert service and how we actually work and get great results for our clients, but also that the California divorce process is complex and difficult.
Why would anyone hire the best online divorce service and then kick them around? NetDivorce is the only friend our clients have in their cases. Would you walk into your doctor’s or dentist’s or tax preparer’s or hairdresser’s premises and insult her for no reason or accuse her falsely of wrongdoing before she performs a job for you? Of course not. But that does happen in the online divorce industry, and it happened here.
Again, this complaint answering technique seems to be working. We have not had a problematic client like Holly Carnaggio for almost 3.5 years!! And in the last 12 years, our numbers of cases have gone up over 50%.
Finally – Your Reward
The more than 99.9% of our clients who love NetDivorce service do not want people like Holly Carnaggio to hire us. Such dishonest clients are time consuming and that just takes time away from the clients who are normal, treat us decently and derive great value from our service. Our proprietary software is so good that every single minute that we spend on any case is spent on client support. That’s the way it should be and our clients like it that way.
So, please, if you have read this far and you find yourself thinking that Holly Carnaggio is a normal, decent, honest person, please do NOT hire NetDivorce. We and our clients think you will be much better taken care of elsewhere. NetDivorce would prefer you to hire a competitor.
However, if you have suffered through this long response, there is a reward. If you understand what happened in the divorce of Holly Carnaggio, and you are looking for an expert uncontested divorce in California for very little money, if you hire NetDivorce, your reward for reading through this Holly Carnaggio nonsense is a further $30 discount off our already industry-lowest flat fee of $129.
Please use discount code – NotLikeHolly – (don’t include either of the “-“) when you check out and your total cost will be $99. Just copy that discount code from here and enter it on the checkout page when you hire us.
And Holly’s Reward:
As far as Holly Carnaggio is concerned, this page will continue to rank. Any company or individual seeking to hire her or do any business with her will inevitably search on her name. BTW, she has a lot of names and spellings of names – more than we’ve listed here.
People who attack others without good cause and try to harm those others financially are not nice people. They deserve the same in return, except of course that NetDivorce’s self-defensive response is completely justified because Holly Ann Carnaggio initiated the unjustified complaint process.
Thanks for reading and considering NetDivorce for your uncontested California divorce.