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.
A bank and collection law firm in Texas are facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act in how they were reviving dormant judgments and then attempting to collect on the time-barred debts.
The Background: Back in 2006 the plaintiff became overdrawn on his checking account. The bank sued him and obtained a judgment in 2010. The judgment was set to expire in 2020. Before it did, the bank filed a motion to revive the judgment. It used a process known as scire facias, which requires the plaintiff to show why the judgment should not be renewed.
- In 2023, a state court in Texas granted the motion to revive the judgment. The plaintiff asked the court to reconsider the motion and when it didn’t, he appealed the decision. Last month, the Eighth Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the revival because the bank had failed to personally serve the plaintiff with either a citation or a write of scire facias to commence the revival of the judgment.
- The plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit, accusing the defendants of attempting to collect on a time-barred debt by threatening to seize the plaintiff’s assets through a court order, including post-judgment interest that was accruing.
- The plaintiff is accusing the bank and the collection law firm of engaging in a pattern of this behavior with other individuals.
The Claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating the FDCPA by engaging in unfair and unconscionable behavior by threatening to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt.
- The complaint also accuses the defendants of violating the TDCA by sending two letters to the plaintiff — one when the judgment was conditionally unenforceable and one after the revival period had expired, according to the complaint.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else in Texas who had judgments owed to the bank that were revived by court order granting a motion to revive a judgment where the bank did not serve a citation or writ of scire facias.
