Collector Facing Class Action for Not Itemizing Debt in MVN Correctly

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 [email protected] 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.

We have seen plenty of lawsuits filed due to the lack of a date on the Model Validation Notice, but this might be one of the first claiming the defendant failed to document the information in the itemization table correctly. A class-action lawsuit has been filed in Washington federal court accusing a collector of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it allegedly “lumped” the principal and interest together instead of breaking it out separately in a Model Validation Notice.

A copy of the complaint , filed in the District Court for the Western District of Washington, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-05410 or by clicking here. A copy of the Model Validation Notice can be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiff received the Model Validation Notice from the defendant last August. It informed the plaintiff that the balance on the debt was $3,491.65. The itemization table listed that amount on the “As of August 31, 2020, you owed:” line of the table. The remaining lines — interest, fees, and any amount that was credited to the account — were all listed as $0.00. But, the plaintiff claims, there had been interest that was charged by the defendant or one of the debt’s previous owners. The complaint doesn’t include any substantiation or corroboration to that claim; it’s just noted as being “upon information and belief.”

The Model Validation Notice also does not indicate whether interest is continuing to accrue on the balance, which the plaintiff claims, is deceptive and misleading.

The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone else who received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant who received a similar notice where it claimed the entire balance owed included $0.00 of interest, despite some interest having accrued on the debt.

Check Also


CFPB Orders OneMain to Pay $20M in Fines, Penalties

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau yesterday announced a consent order with OneMain Financial that will …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *