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.
Integers were never my thing. I could never wrap my head around a negative number. How could you have a negative amount of something? It never made sense to me. A negative number in the itemization table of a Model Validation Notice has led to a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit because it increased the amount of the debt owed instead of decreasing it, which is what the plaintiff claimed should have happened.
The Background: The plaintiff took out a loan to purchase a car. The debt went into default and the plaintiff disputed the debt and requested that all further communication regarding the debt be ceased.
- The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant. The notice informed the plaintiff that as of November 16, 2022, the plaintiff owed $12,966.63.
- In the itemization table, the amount that was charged in interest was $0.00, the amount that was charged in fees was $0.00, and the amount that was paid or credited toward the debt was -$150.00. At the bottom of the table, it read that the total amount of the debt now was $13,116.63.
- This is incorrect, according to the plaintiff, because the -$150 should have lowered the amount because it was attempting to credit him with a payment of $150, according to the complaint.
- A credit to the account should decrease the amount due, the plaintiff claims.
The Claims: The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA.
