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.
A pair of individuals, alleged to be husband and wife, have been named — along with a trio of companies they allegedly owned and operated — in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for, among other things, operating in North Carolina without a proper license, claiming that a lawsuit was about to be filed that never was, and disclosing the existence of a debt to the plaintiff’s stepson.
The Background: The defendant allegedly left voicemails for the plaintiff, her husband, and her stepson that made various warnings, such as contacting the plaintiff’s employer to identify the plaintiff’s location, mentioning that a claim was in the process of being filed with the county, and that the plaintiff would need to speak with someone in the legal department if the plaintiff called back.
- The complaint also claims that two of the companies identified in the complaint are “essentially one and the same company” that share common ownership by the husband and wife, and that the plaintiff believes the two companies are “often used to hide the affairs of the others, so as to protect” the owners.
- When the plaintiff called the number that was left in the voicemails, she was told that the company processed paperwork and made recommendations for different county courts, and the representative refused to provide documentation about the account, saying the original creditor or other collection agencies should have done that.
The Claims: The suit accuses the defendants of violating a number of provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to, 1692c(b), 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g.
- The complaint also accuses the defendants of violating the state law in North Carolina.