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 collector is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for allegedly not knowing that the plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy protection — even though the debt in question was not part of the filing — and for allegedly not informing the plaintiff that the statute of limitations on the debt had expired.
The Background: Ten years ago, the plaintiff incurred a series of medical debts that were owed to a healthcare provider. Last month, the plaintiff went back to the provider for an appointment and was refused service because of the unpaid debts. The plaintiff was referred to the defendant.
- The plaintiff contacted the defendant and was given a list of the debts that were owed. Needing to see a doctor, the plaintiff agreed to pay the debts and provided his credit card information.
- It’s at this point that the plaintiff started to research the details of the debts, according to the complaint. On a number of occasions, the plaintiff “took time out of his day” to review his financial records, to discuss with his attorney whether the accounts in question were discharged as part of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing that was made in 2020, and then to send the defendant a letter canceling his payment.
- The plaintiff claims the debts were discharged even though they weren’t listed on his filing, and that the statute of limitations for actions based on contracts is six years in Indiana, which the defendant failed to disclose when talking to the plaintiff.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA, as well as provisions of Regulation F by falsely stating the character of the debt and for attempting to collect a debt that was discharged in bankruptcy.