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.
As someone who prefers to communicate using the written word and has spent a lot of time doing that, I appreciate a well-written document, or at least attempts thereof. Complaints rarely fill that need, although the one in this case tries really hard to tell a story. A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law in Washington over issues related to a judgment that the plaintiffs “contemplated that they might never pay off” because of communication issues and alleged misrepresentations about the debt.
The background: Back in 2024, one of the plaintiffs received a writ of garnishment, learning that the defendant had obtained a judgment against the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs “are a hardworking family,” the complaint states, “but they are not lawyers. Having no knowledge of any judgment, the reason why they supposedly owed money to [the defendant] was extremely vague…”
- The plaintiffs contacted the defendant to try and “do whatever was possible to stop the wage garnishment,” and entered into an agreement with the defendant to make monthly payments of $500 after making an initial payment of $1,000, and the defendant would waive the interest, according to the complaint.
- “The minutiae and details of this 2024/2025 phone conversation are potentially lost to time,” the complaint notes, but the plaintiffs believed they owed about $9,000.
- Upon investigation, the defendant had filed a lawsuit and obtained a judgment in the amount of $9,666.05 at 12% interest. The plaintiffs claim never to have been served anything related to the lawsuit and “are responsible people who would have paid any bills presented to them, and who would not have simply ignored a properly-served lawsuit,” according to the complaint.
- As of early 2026, between the payments made by the plaintiffs and the garnishment, the plaintiffs believed they had paid off the debt.
- In March 2025, the plaintiffs received two statements from the defendant, which were identical except that they were dated differently. There were issues, though, with the statements. There was no indication that a judgment was obtained and listed eight lines of debt, mostly medical, but also listed a grocery store, too. There were also issues and confusion about the amounts listed on the statement.
- In early 2026, the plaintiffs mailed a check for what they believed to be the remaining balance, but the check was rejected and sent back to the plaintiffs, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiffs inquired about the returned check and received a later that claimed they owed $13,078.84. The letter also included a breakdown of the debt, which was “confusing and untrue in a variety of ways,” according to the complaint.
- Unsure of what to do, the plaintiffs contacted an attorney and this lawsuit was filed.
The claims: The lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA for misrepresenting the amount owed “in each and every written communication,” and making a deal where the plaintiffs would not have to pay interest only to go back on it, among other claims.
- The suit also accuses the defendant of violating Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.
