A class-action lawsuit has been filed in New Jersey by a plaintiff who claims that a debt buyer allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not have the proper license to authorize a collection law firm to try and collect on a judgment in that state and that a letter sent to the plaintiff by one of the defendants did not properly disclose that interest and other fees were accruing on the debt. The lawsuit also attempts to hold the debt buyer vicariously liable for the alleged violations that may have been made by the collection law firm.
A copy of the complaint in the case of Velez-Aguilar v. Ragan & Ragan and First Portfolio Ventures I can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff seeks to include anyone else who received a letter from the law firm in relation to a debt owned by the debt buyer that sought to collect on a judgment where interest, costs, and/or fees were accruing but was not mentioned in the letter. The letter references the amount of the debt — $1,192.70 — but does not itemize the amount of the debt by breaking out principal, interest, fees, and other charges, according to the complaint.
The debt buyer purchased the judgment from another debt buyer and referred the case to the law firm for collection. But the complaint claims that the debt buyer did not have the proper license to collect in New Jersey and should not have been allowed to place the account with the law firm, which the plaintiff alleges violates Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(a), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA. The plaintiff also claims the defendants violated Section 1692e by not disclosing in the letter that the judgment was still accruing interest.
The plaintiff also seeks to hold the debt buyer vicariously liable for any violations of the FDCPA that the law firm may have committed.