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 debt buyer and collection law firm are facing claims in Idaho they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for continuing to garnish the wages of an individual who had allegedly paid the debt in full.
The background: Back in December 2024, a collection lawsuit was filed against the plaintiff, and a judgment was entered in the amount of $4,972.95.
- In August, the defendants filed an order seeking to garnish the plaintiff’s wages, which was granted. The plaintiff was notified about the garnishment on September 5.
- On September 9, the plaintiff contacted the collection law firm and paid the account in full, according to the complaint. The representative who took the payment said that removing the garnishment could take up to 30 days, but that all money would be returned.
- The law firm filed a satisfaction of judgment with the court on September 30.
- The problem is that the plaintiff’s wages are still being garnished, as of the date the complaint was filed on December 11.
- The plaintiff has received different answers from the collection law firm, her employer, and the local sheriff’s office about who is responsible for not stopping the garnishments. The sheriff’s office claims a release of garnishment has not been filed, which means an active garnishment is still in place. A representative of the law firm admitted — according to the complaint — that the release had not yet been filed and did not know why.
- Subsequently, the law firm said the plaintiff had to contact the human resources department of her employer to find out why the garnishments were continuing.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendants of engaging in unfair and unconscionable means to collect, using misleading representations by continuing to garnish the plaintiff’s wages after the judgment had been satisfied, and for telling the plaintiff the reason her wages were being garnished was the fault of her employer’s HR department.
