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 collection operation is facing a pair of class-action lawsuits in Montana federal court after sending Model Validation Notices to consumers that failed to include the itemization date.
The background: Both of the cases contain slight wrinkles that differentiate them from each other, but the crux of the matter is that neither of the MVNs contained an itemization date. In the itemization table in both notices, the plaintiffs were informed, “As of , you owed:” and “Between and today” about how much was charged in interest.
- Coincidentally, both of the MVNs sent to the plaintiffs were for the same amount — $862.67. One of the plaintiffs claimed not to be the responsible party for the debt and that the notice was sent to him in error.
- The other plaintiff actually received two MVNs. One on March 12 for $862.67 and one on May 14 for $953.66, which broke down to $862.67 for the debt and $90.99 in interest. Neither of the MVNs sent to this plaintiff had an itemization date, according to the complaint.
- That the notices did not contain all the information necessary led the plaintiffs not to trust the source of the information and whether it was legitimate or not, according to the complaint.
- Both of the plaintiffs were injured because they spent time and money to mitigate the risk of future financial and reputational harm in the form of informational furbishment and ultimate dissemination to third parties. By not acting on the notices because they didn’t trust them, the plantiffs suffered negative credit reporting, to their financial detriments, according to the complaints.
The claims: Both complaints accuse the defendant of violating Section 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA.
- One complaint seeks to include anyone who received a letter from the defendant who was not the responsible party for the debt and which did not contain the date on whuch the alleged debt was incurred.
- The other complaint seeks to include anyone who received at least one letter from the defendant that failed to state the date on which the alleged debt was incurred.
Read the complaints here and here
