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.
An interesting twist in the normal debt collection process, kind of a man-bites-dog situation, along with yet another entry in the game of “is this a dispute or not” highlight this complaint that was filed in Minnesota District Court.
The background: The plaintiff moved out of his apartment in July 2024. State law in Minnesota requires landlords to send former tenants their security deposits back within 21 days of terminating the tenancy. In this case, the landlord sent the move out notice a month after the plaintiff moved out. In the letter, the landlord said that not only was it not returning the security deposit, but that the plaintiff owed $591.84 for charges related to property damage. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the landlord, and when the landlord didn’t show up for the trial, a default judgment was entered against it in the amount of $1,180.
- Back in November, the defendant began reporting information about the $591.84 debt to the credit reporting agencies. The plaintiff alleges he never received any communication from the defendant prior to the debt being reported.
- Starting in February, the plaintiff contacted the defendant on two separate occasions and allegedly explained that he was the one, in fact, who was owed money. By informing the representative that he had a judgment against the landlord, the plaintiff was both disputing and refusing to pay the debt, according to the complaint. The representative did not ask for any additional information and informed the plaintiff that he had to call back in 30 days for an update.
- In April, the plaintiff received a check from the landlord and an updated move-out letter than listed the balance owed as $0.00.
- But as of May, the defendant was still reporting to the credit reporting agencies that the plaintiff owed a debt to the defendant.
- The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to suffer from anxiety, emotional distress, stress, and frustration, according to the complaint.
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692f(1), and 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
