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.
Sometimes, it’s just one thing that sets a consumer off on a path to filing a lawsuit against a company in the credit and collection industry. Other times, like in this instance, it’s a bunch of things that sets a consumer off. A collection law firm and an attorney are facing claims of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and South Carolina state law for actions related to a lawsuit that was filed to collect on an unpaid debt.
The background: Back in March 2025, the defendants filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff in South Carolina state court. An affidavit itemizing the accounts that was attached to the complaint was signed by an attorney from the collection law firm and not by the plaintiff, a national bank. This was a problem, according to the suit in question, because South Carolina state law requires that a witness have personal knowledge of the matter to which they testify, and the attorney could not have known testified that the balance was accurate, or that the payment history or itemization was correct, according to the complaint.
- The affidavit also listed court costs of $80, but the complaint included a copy of a cover letter sent to the court noting that the filing fee that was paid was $70.
- Six months after filing the lawsuit to collect on the unpaid debt, the defendant sent two letters to the plaintiff, neither of which made any mention of the pending lawsuit, according to the complaint. A least sophisticated consumer would be confused, according to the plaintiff, because they would be misled into thinking that no legal action had been initiated.
- The plaintiff also claims that he was not provided a right-to-cure notice before the collection lawsuit was filed, which is also a requirement under South Carolina state law. The only communication the plaintiff received in writing before the lawsuit was filed against him was a collection letter, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendants of violating Section 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA by filing an affidavit that was signed by an attorney who did not have personal knowledge of the account in question and for overstating the court costs.
- The defendants are also accused of violating Section 1692e(10) and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA related to the affidavit and the court costs.
- For allegedly sending collection letters that did not reference the collection lawsuit, and for not being provided with a right-to-cure notice, the suit accuses the defendants of violating Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA.
- The suit also accuses the defendants of violating the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, and accuses them of engaging in unconscionable debt collection activities in violation of South Carolina state law.
