Another cautionary tale in what happens if you deny you did anything wrong and then don’t show up to defend yourself … A District Court judge in Washington has awarded the plaintiffs in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case nearly $20,000 in damages after improperly garnishing $1,300 from the plaintiffs’ bank account. On top of that, the plaintiffs have also filed a motion for $23,000 in attorney fees, although they do not express much optimism in their motion at the likelihood of collecting on that amount.
The background: The case stemmed from a July 2023 garnishment in which the defendant, a debt collection agency, seized $1,296.74 from the plaintiffs’ bank account. The plaintiffs, a married couple residing in Washington, contested the garnishment, asserting that they did not owe the debt. They made a written request for the funds to be returned, but the collection agency refused.
- The plaintiffs filed suit in King County Superior Court in December 2023, and the case was removed to federal court the following month. After initially filing an answer, the defendant’s attorney withdrew in June 2024 and the company ceased participating in the case.
- A default judgment on liability was entered in October 2024, and a damages hearing took place in June 2025. The defendant did not appear.
The ruling: The court found the plaintiffs’ testimony to be credible and awarded a total of $19,955.22 in damages. This included:
- $1,296.74 in wrongly garnished funds,
- $275 in lost wages,
- $80 in legal consultation costs,
- $10,000 in emotional distress damages for one plaintiff,
- $5,000 in emotional distress for the other,
- and $1,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA.
Additionally, the court trebled the garnishment, legal consultation, and lost wages amounts under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, stating that “treble damages are appropriate… to deter and punish defendant from further violations.”
The judge noted the defendant’s continued refusal to refund the money or take responsibility: “Even as of the day of this hearing, Defendant A&A has not refunded any of Plaintiffs’ money, and in its Answer… repeatedly attempted to blame Plaintiffs for their damages.”
