Recent FDCPA Cases Regarding Collection Harassment and Collection Abuse
The Kittell Law Firm has represented consumers in many FDCPA cases. Below are summaries of a few of the recent Kittell Law Firm FDCPA cases.
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit against Diverse Funding Associates – After our client was sued by Diverse Funding Associates for a debt that she contends was beyond the statute of limitations, the Kittell Law Firm filed one of its FDCPA cases against Diverse Funding Associates, alleging that the collection lawsuit filed by Diverse against our client violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FDCPA does not allow third party debt collectors to either take or threaten to take any action not allowed by law, including suing or threatening to sue to collect a time barred debt. After the FDCPA lawsuit was filed against Diverse Funding in the County Court of Bolivar County, Diverse Funding removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The lawsuit sought actual damages suffered by our client as a result of Diverse Funding’s alleged violations of the FDCPA, plus additional damages not to exceed $1,000.00 and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act litigation against Enterprise Recovery Systems, Inc. – The Kittell Law Firm recently filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Lafayette County, Mississippi on behalf of a client from Oxford, Mississippi. In the lawsuit, our client alleges that Enterprise Recovery Systems, Inc., a debt collector, placed several collection calls to her by calling her at her place of employment and by calling her on her cell phone while she was at work, after our client instructed the collection agency not to do so. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (called the FDCPA for short) prohibits collection calls at the consumer’s place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication. The FDCPA also prohibits collection calls at any time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. Once our client informed Enterprise Recovery Systems that the collection calls were being made to her at her place of employment and that collection calls to her cell phone while she was at work was causing her inconvenience, our client alleges that future such calls violated the FDCPA. The lawsuit also alleges that these collection calls were meant to harass our client. The FDCPA also prohibits a debt collector from engaging in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.
The lawsuit is seeking actual damages suffered by our client as a result of Enterprise Recovery Systems’ alleged violations of the FDCPA, plus additional damages not to exceed $1,000.00 and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Lawsuit against Professional Credit Management, Inc. – Lawsuit filed in the County Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi against collection agency Professional Credit Management, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 25 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. The Plaintiff allegedly owed a debt to Professional Credit Management. According to the Plaintiff, employees of Professional Credit Management made collection phone calls to the Plaintiff regarding the debt and misrepresented to the Plaintiff that it had obtained a judgment against the Plaintiff and would garnish the Plaintiff’s paycheck if the Plaintiff did not pay immediately. No such judgment existed, nor that the Plaintiff been sued by Professional Credit Management or anyone else regarding the alleged debt.
15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits a debt collector such as Professional Credit Management from threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. If true, Professional Credit Management’s threats of garnishment based on a judgment that does not exist is a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). Professional Credit Management also allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2), 1692e(4) and 1692e(10) by its misrepresentations that the Plaintiff had a judgment against her for the alleged debt and that her wages would be garnished.
The Plaintiff is seeking actual damages caused by Professional Credit Management’s alleged violations of the FDCPA, plus additional damages not to exceed $1,000.00 and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.