EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
Sometimes, and this is one of those times, a complaint leaves you with more questions than answers. A collector is facing a lawsuit for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it allegedly failed to honor a payment arrangement it made with the plaintiffs, returning the final payment and pulling “the rug out from under” the plaintiffs, according to the complaint.
A copy of the complaint, which was originally filed in Hawaii state court and subsequently removed to the District Court for the District of Hawaii by the defendant, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-00377 or by clicking here.
The plaintiffs were contacted by the defendant, which was attempting to collect on an unpaid credit card debt of $11,373.69. The defendant made a settlement offer in the amount of $3,980.80, which would be made in essentially payments — $3,490.40 due on March 17, 2023, and then a final payment of $490.49 due on April 18. The plaintiffs made the first payment, and then were contacted on April 14 by the defendant to be reminded that the final payment was due. The plaintiffs called the defendant back later that same day to make the payment, but the defendant refused to accept the payment over the phone. So the plaintiffs sent check via certified mail that same day to the defendant, completing the terms of the settlement offer. The plaintiffs spent $4.78 to mail the check.
A week later, the check was returned to the plaintiffs by the defendant. The defendant also sent a letter to the plaintiffs, indicating it no longer handled the plaintiffs’ account. The defendant wrote “void” on the check that it sent back to the plaintiffs.
The defendant the commenced attempts to collect the entire account balance, despite the plaintiffs’ honoring their side of the settlement, according to the complaint.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating state law in Hawaii by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices and for violating Section 1692e and 1692e(2) of the FDCPA by making false or misleading representations in attempting to collect on a debt.
