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 collection law firm is being accused of jumping the gun and violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by cashing post-dated monthly payments for the rest of 2026 by a consumer who had entered into a stipulated judgment with the company.
The background: The plaintiff allegedly incurred a consumer debt that was eventually assigned to a debt buyer, which retained the defendant law firm to file suit in Nevada state court. The parties later entered into a stipulated judgment in October 2025 to resolve the case.
- Under that agreement, the plaintiff was to pay $14,821.80 without interest through monthly payments of $247.03, with each payment due on the last day of the respective month. The plaintiff set up ACH payments described as electronic post-dated checks to be withdrawn at the end of each month.
- The complaint alleges that the October, November, and December 2025 payments were processed without issue. However, on January 6, 2026, the defendant sent a letter stating that a payment would be processed on January 15, 2026, which the plaintiff claims was inconsistent with the agreed-upon payment date of the 31st. The plaintiff responded by email disputing any change in the payment schedule and insisting that withdrawals occur only at the end of each month.
- Despite that communication, the complaint alleges that on January 13, 2026, the defendant cashed not only the January 2026 payment early, but also the February and March 2026 payments on the same day. The defendant allegedly attempted to cash nine additional post-dated checks covering April through December 2026, which were returned for insufficient funds.
The claims: The lawsuit asserts that by collecting and attempting to collect payments before they were due under the stipulated judgment, the defendant violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA.
- Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of Section 1692d for engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse a consumer. It also alleges violations of Section 1692e and Section 1692e(2)(A) for making false representations regarding the character, amount, or legal status of the debt, and Section 1692e(10) for using false or misleading representations in connection with collection.
- In addition, the complaint claims the defendant violated Section 1692f and Section 1692f(1) by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect an amount not expressly authorized by the parties’ agreement or permitted by law.
