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.
Judgments can be tricky. For the owner and for the subject. A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for garnishing an individual’s wages after the debt had allegedly been settled and for potentially misrepresenting that it was the lawful successor of the judgment despite filing any paperwork to show the judgment had been assigned to it.
The background: Back in 2011, the defendant obtained a default judgment in the amount of $3,901.97 against the plaintiff for an unpaid medical bill and utility bill. The defendant then garnished the plaintiff’s wages for $500.
- In 2021, the defendant moved to extend the duration of its judgment, stating the balance was now $8,414.53.
- In 2024, the defendant issued a wage garnishment to the plaintiff’s employer. There were, according to the complaint, some issues with the amounts that were being claimed to be owed in the garnishment.
- Also in 2024, counsel for another collection operation, who also represented the defendant, filed a notice of substitution of counsel, indicating a change of counsel for the other collection operation, while the paper included the defendant’s name and contact information. This created some confusion about how the defendant is permitted to demand money in connection with the collection of the judgment.
- This past July, the plaintiffs called the defendant and worked out a settlement of $4,529.99, which they paid via cashier’s check, according to the complaint.
- In September, the plaintiffs received certified mail from the defendant, which was a writ of garnishment. The writ represented that $1 in principal was owed, but that interest was $6,281.81 and the total due was $2,145.61.
- The plaintiff contacted the defendant, who acknowledged that the case had been settled, but that an “administrative” problem had “befallen” the defendant, leading to the writ being issued.
- Two weeks later, the plaintiff was notified by his employer than an upcoming check would be garnished in the amount of $500.
- The complaint paints a very descriptive picture: As plaintiffs we’re living on the razor’s edge, having just bought their home. This was perhaps the least opportune time possible for a garnishment. While in time they would build up their savings, that would take several months. Plaintiffs worried about how they would make their next mortgage payment and feared the money might have to come from their son’s soccer class. He is 7 years old, as of this day. Plaintiffs struggle to contain the heartache of what they experienced and expected to be on the look of their son’s face when they sit him down for the conversation about the realities of limited funds.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA by asserting that the plaintiff owed money with the matter had been settled, for garnishing the plaintiff’s wages, for failing to file a satisfaction of the judgment or a dismissal, for saying during the phone call that the matter would be handled promptly, and for claiming the defendant was the lawful successor of the judgment without filing any paperwork to that effect.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating state collection laws in Washington.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The complaint has been ordered under seal because it contains Social Security numbers of individuals involved in the suit.
