Plaintiff Sues Collector, Claiming Defendant Told Her Not to Show Up For Court Hearing

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 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 mentioned in the disclaimer above, complaints tell only one side of the story. In a lot of cases, the allegations are not necessarily well-substantiated or documented, and it can be difficult to believe that what is being alleged is actually what happened. But, as most in the accounts receivable management industry have learned, anyone can sue for just about anything.

Take, for example, a complaint, filed late last month in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts (case number 22-cv-30128). The plaintiff was sued by the defendant to collect on an unpaid debt. The plaintiff attended a hearing and was instructed to complete a form disclosing all of her income, which came from Social Security benefits. The plaintiff allegedly contacted the defendant two days before another hearing was scheduled “to discuss the current status of the case and the upcoming hearing,” according to the complaint. During that conversation, the plaintiff claims she was told that the defendant would be terminating the case because of the plaintiff’s “financial hardship.” The plaintiff allegedly asked if she needed to attend the hearing and was allegedly told she did not. You can see where this is going, right?

The plaintiff did not attend the hearing, and after checking the court docket later, learned that the defendant had requested a default judgment for failing to appear.

The defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(10), 1692e(15), and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well as provisions of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

Check Also

FCC Banishes Telecom Company After Not Addressing Robocall Rules

The Federal Communications Commission yesterday announced it had excommunicated a telecom company for failing to …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.