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.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice … the saying goes. A collection law firm is facing allegations that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it twice served a summons and complaint in a collection lawsuit to an individual who claims she was not the individual who signed the agreement and that not only had she never owned the type of car in question or lived in the state in which the loan was signed, she became Victoria Mitchell two years after the contract was signed after marrying someone with that last name.
The background: In April 2024, the defendant filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Victoria Mtichell, who signed a Kia auto loan agreement in Arkansas in 2021. The records attached to the lawsuit indicated that Ms. Mitchell lived in Arkansas through 2023.
- After the defendant attempted to serve a summons and complaint on the plaintiff, she contacted the defendant and explaind that she had never lived in Arkansas, never owned a Kia, and was Victoria Affsprung when the contract was signed in 2021, only becoming Victoria Mitchell in 2023 when she got married.
- The plaintiff also provided copies of her marriage license, Social Security number, and driver’s license to confirm her identity.
- The lawsuit was dismissed in August 2024.
- In June 2025, another lawsuit was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. The summons and complaint were served to the plaintiff a month later.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA by engaging in harassing, oppressive, and abusive conduct, making false statements concerning an alleged debt, and attempting to collect on a debt that was not legally owed.
- The plaintiff claims to have suffered fear of court action against her, being humiliated by having to appear in court to defend two separate unlawful debt collection lawsuits, as well as anger, anxiety, emotional distress, frustration, upset, embarrassment, and other negative emotions.
