When I moved in to my current resident some 10 years ago the cable company misspelled my name. How they managed to turn a 4 letter name into a 7 letter monstrosity with only an initial “R” and no vowels in common has always been a mystery.
But it always alerts me when an entity; spammer, scammer, mass marketer contacts me using that misspelling, that they bought my name from the cable company lists.
Today Lockhart Morris contacted me using this name saying I owed money. These people used the non-existent person’s name. I asked who I owed it to. They could not tell me, only that it was a “finance company.” The only thing I have ever financed is my car and that is long paid for and I hold the title. I traded in my old car, which was also paid for, as the down payment 16 years ago.
And my cable bill is automatically deducted and paid up.
They did not have my real name so I asked them what address they had. They didn’t have one. They could not tell me, only that it was from a finance company. I asked when the debt was incurred; they could not tell me, only that it was from a finance company.
Did some checking and this company is in Texas. Did some more checking and it turns out Texas is a haven for illegitimate and semi-legitimate debt collectors. Scam artists. Despite what the Lockhart Morris employee has been paid to post in this site, a legitimate company would have my correct name, my correct address, the name, and date of any legal debt; and this boiler-room phone bank lacks all of those.
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, XXXXXXXXXX, by and through his attorneys, XXXXXXXXXX, and for his complaint against the Defendant, LOCKHART, MORRIS & MONTGOMERY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff states as follows:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an action for actual and statutory damages for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq.
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
2. Jurisdiction arises under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1337.
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
III. PARTIES
4. XXXXXXXXXX, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) is an individual who was at all relevant times residing in Clinton Township, County of Macomb, State of Michigan.
5. The debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed was incurred for Plaintiff’s educational expenses.
6. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).
7. LOCKHART, MORRIS & MONTGOMERY, INCORPORATED, (hereinafter, “Defendant”) is a business entity engaged in the collection of debt within the State of Michigan. Defendant is incorporated in the State of Texas.
8. The principal purpose of Defendant’s business is the collection of debts allegedly owed to third parties.
9. Defendant regularly collects, or attempts to collect, debts allegedly owed to third parties.
10. During the course of its efforts to collect debts allegedly owed to third parties, Defendant sends to alleged debtors bills, statements, and/or other correspondence via the mail and/or electronic mail and initiates contact with alleged debtors via various means of telecommunication, such as the telephone and facsimile.
11. At all relevant times, Defendant acted as a debt collector as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).
12. At all relevant times, Defendant acted through its duly authorized agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers.
IV. ALLEGATIONS
13. On or about November 20, 2010, Plaintiff received a telephone call from a duly authorized representative of Defendant, who stated that he was calling to collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in the amount of $6,125.00.
14. Plaintiff told Defendant that because he was currently unemployed he was currently unable to pay for the debt he allegedly owed.
15. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it was aware that Plaintiff was receiving student loans.
16. Defendant then told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt then Plaintiff’s student loans would be frozen and he would be unable to access them.
17. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to withhold Plaintiff’s student loans from Plaintiff.
18. Defendant further told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt then Plaintiff would not receive his federal income tax return.
19. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to withhold Plaintiff’s income tax return.
20. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant further told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt he owed then Plaintiff’s financial accounts would be frozen.
21. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to freeze Plaintiff’s financial accounts.
22. At no time during the course of the aforesaid telephone call did Defendant’s duly authorized representative provide Plaintiff with information regarding his individual identity.
23. On or about December 17, 2010, Mr. Drew Smith, a duly authorized representative of Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff and left Plaintiff a voicemail message.
24. Defendant stated that he was “calling regarding the claim that was due to be filed at the County Clerk’s Office.”
25. Defendant further stated that it required that either Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s attorney contact Defendant immediately.
26. Defendant then provided Plaintiff with a putative case number.
27. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff that it was a debt collector, that it was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose.
28. At no time during the course of the aforementioned voicemail message left for Plaintiff did Mr. Smith provide Plaintiff with information relative to Defendant’s identity.
29. Defendant’s representation that a claim was due to be filed at the County Clerk’s Office had the effect of conveying to an unsophisticated consumer that the failure to immediately contact Defendant would result in Defendant filing a lawsuit.
30. On or about December 20, 2010, subsequent to having received the aforesaid voicemail message, Plaintiff initiated a telephone call to Mr. Smith.
31. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he owed a debt in the amount of $7,656.00.
32. Plaintiff asked Defendant why it was attempting to collect $7,656.00 from him given that Plaintiff was previously informed by Defendant, on November 20, 2010, that the debt he allegedly owed was for $6,125.00.
33. Defendant told Plaintiff that he owed additional funds for fees and for the processing of paperwork relative to Plaintiff’s account.
34. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s contract with respect to the debt he allegedly owed did not provide for Defendant to collect additional fees from Plaintiff.
35. Upon information and belief, Defendant attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was in excess of the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed.
36. Defendant, by attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was in excess of the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed, misrepresented the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed.
37. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant asked Plaintiff “[w]hy do you not own up to the fact that you owe this money?”
38. Defendant further told Plaintiff that it could tell Plaintiff was not making an effort to obtain funds sufficient to pay the aforesaid debt.
39. Defendant then intentionally disconnected the telephone call with Plaintiff.
40. Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff initiated a telephone call to Defendant and requested to speak to Mr. Smith.
41. Defendant’s duly authorized representative answered the aforesaid telephone call and informed Plaintiff “[y]ou do not need to speak to him. You will deal with me now.”
42. Defendant then stated “[y]ou do not know how to pay your bills. Is that why you are calling us and harassing us?”
43. Defendant’s statements as delineated above are neither statements made in an effort to seek payment from Plaintiff nor statements made to further the collection efforts of Defendant.
44. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to unjustly condemn and vilify Plaintiff for his non-payment of the debt he allegedly owed.
45. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to produce an unpleasant and/or hostile situation between Defendant and Plaintiff.
46. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to cause Plaintiff mental distress.
47. On or about January 6, 2011, Mr. John Edell, a duly authorized representative of Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff and left Plaintiff a voicemail message.
48. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff that it was a debt collector, that it was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose.
49. At no time during the course of the aforementioned telephone call to Plaintiff did Mr. Edell provide information relative to Defendant’s identity.
50. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant stated it wanted to speak to Plaintiff to “identify whether this was something [Plaintiff] had an interest in resolving voluntarily or whether [Defendant] would need to get the help of the courts and the appropriate township involved.”
51. Defendant then stated “[t]he time is ten (10) o’clock central standard time on Thursday. I need you hear back from [Plaintiff] no later than noon tomorrow in terms of what [Plaintiff’s] intentions are.”
52. Defendant then told Plaintiff that if he failed to communicate with Defendant then Defendant would “move things forward.”
53. Defendant’s representations, as delineated above, had the effect of conveying to an unsophisticated consumer that if Defendant was not contacted by noon, on the next day, then Defendant would file a lawsuit.
54. Defendant has not filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
55. Upon information and belief, at the time of making the aforementioned threats, Defendant had no intention of filing a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendant has no authority to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
57. Upon information and belief, at the time of making the aforementioned threats, Defendant had no authority to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
58. Defendant has not provided to Plaintiff, within five (5) days of its initial communication to collect the alleged debt, with written confirmation of the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor to whom the debt is allegedly owed or a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector.
59. In its attempts to collect the debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, Defendant violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692, in one or more of the following ways:
a. Engaged in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d;
b. Used obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(2);
c. Placed a telephone call to a consumer without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6);
d. Used false, deceptive, misleading and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect an alleged debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e;
e. Falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of any debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A);
f. Represented or implied that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(4);
g. Threatened to take action that cannot legally or is not intended to be taken in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5);
h. Used any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning the consumer in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10);
i. Failed to disclose in communications that said communication was from a debt collector and that any information obtained during the communication will be used for the purpose of collecting a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11);
j. Used unfair and/or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f;
k. Attempted the collection of funds from Plaintiff despite having no lawful authority to do so in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f(1);
l. Failed to comply with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a); and,
m. Was otherwise deceptive and failed to comply with the provisions of the FDCPA.
Got a call from the same number 214-522-6424 about suing me to collect money on a debt i owed trying to upgrade through the college network. He threatened to hurt my nursing license.
i got the same voicemail yesterday and I called him back and he stated it was over the college network and I could lose my license if I didnt pay before they went to court today. Is this possible?
He told me the same thing about my nursing license. That is i didn't pay the college network what I owe them they would have my license taken away and they also said they would place this on my ssn and it would be with me forever they where rude, call me hunderd times and threatened me several times. So to me it looks like they need a class action against them.