An Ohio consumer sued lawyers who filed collection suits in a certain Ohio court on behalf of the Lebanon Citizens National Bank and against consumers who lived in other counties.  By doing so, the collection lawyers violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and a parallel state law requiring consumer collection actions to be brought in the county where the consumer resides or where they signed the contract sued on. Although the defendants deny liability, they have agreed to a settlement under which each individual who was sued or had other legal action taken against them in the wrong county during the two years prior to the filing of the class action will receive $600.00.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, a large national collection agency, has been sued in Federal Court.

The lawsuit alleges that the collection agency violated the law by constantly and continuously placing collection calls to the consumer’s residence and place of work. The consumer states in his complaint that the defendant collection agency has called more than 100 times.

The defendant is also accused of violating the FDCPA by contact the consumer at his place of employment, harassing and abusing him with the collection of the debt, communicating to the consumer at an inconvenient time, and for failing to send the consumer a validation notice within five days of their initial communication to him.

The complaint asks for an award of statutory damages, actual damages, costs and attorney’s fees.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division, Case No. 9:12-cv-00008

A debt collector is being sued for calling a consumer and leaving messages without disclosing its true business name in violation of State and Federal laws.

A collection agency called “MRS PBO LLC” is accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and various state laws for not disclosing its true name and for calling the consumer’s brother and leaving voicemail messages regarding her debt.

The defendant is further accused of using false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

The plaintiff is asking for an award of statutory damages, actual damages for personal humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress, treble damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and court costs.

Dobbs v. Mrs BPO LLC, United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 4:12-cv-00015

Lawsuits citing Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations reached 11,359, exceeding last year’s record of 10,914, according to WebRecon LLC, a Grand Rapids, Mich.-based company that tracks the data from the courts.

Judge Keith R. Kyle in Lee County, Florida., found that collection attempts by West Asset Management,  a debt collection firm working on behalf of Bank of America, amounted to harassment.  The companies were found to have violated state law by repeatedly calling a Florida woman about paying the credit-card bill of her late husband.

The latest ruling is part of an August lawsuit filed by Linda Long, a 68-year-old retired office worker, alleging that the debt-collection firm harassed her by calling as many as 10 times a day about $16,651.52 that her husband Millard had accumulated on a Bank of America credit card before his death from colon cancer in March 2010.

A New Jersey consumer recently filed a lawsuit against debt collection lawyers because the letter sent by the attorneys to the consumer contained technical violations of Federal consumer protection laws.  Most people would not even recognize the violations contained within the particular debt collection letter, which is not uncommon.  The New Jersey court sided with the consumer and against the debt collecting attorneys in denying the lawyers’ motion to dismiss the case.  Philip v. Sardo & Batista, P.C., No. 11-4773 (SRC), 2011 WL 5513201 (D. N.J. Nov. 10, 2011).

Recently, a consumer won his case filed in a Federal Court in Arizona, alleging incorrect credit reporting of his debt and subsequent mishandling of his request to verify and dispute that debt.  According to court documents in Pinkerton v. National Credit Services (NCS) of Oklahoma and Capital Assistance Group, LLC, an alleged debt was reported to credit reporting agency Experian by debt collection agencies National Credit Services (NCS) of Oklahoma and Capital Assistance Group (CAS), LLC prior to the Plaintiff receiving notification of the alleged debt. The negative item remained on the Plaintiff’s credit report even after a verification and dispute letter had been sent to the collection agency. The mishandling of the reporting of the debt to the credit reporting agencies was found to be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a) and judgment entered in favor of the consumer.