There have been people in California, including a recent thread, who used accounting to win cases. I did that myself in Wisconsin many years ago.
You need to spend some time to find and read these threads to see how they did it.
The only effect would be is if they did not report to the CRA saying satisfied for less than full amount. You would then have to dispute the tradeline and say that the debt was satisfied which could get messy depending on the stance the creditor/JDB takes.
As far as the scenario above, 10 years ago, I would have expected something like this to happen. I expect it less now because most JDBs have cleaned up their business. However, there are a few that still are unethical and might try to sue you. Again, you simply put accord and satisfaction as you affirmative defense, attach the agreement, and counterclaim for FDCPA violation. That would stop them in their tracks.
Many years ago, when the truth was coming out about how the pocket docket system was being abused in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the legislature made some changes to look like they were tackling the abuses while keeping the system intact to make its largest employer happy (because they did not want their misadventures to be public record). One of those changes was that a case is required to be filed in the court within one year of service, otherwise the case is dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, if nothing is filed in the court the case is automatically dismissed with prejudice.
Now, some legal scholars have suggested that doing this is too draconian but the law has never been tested in the higher courts as of yet. I would doubt that any JDB would want to fall on the sword of tying to sue on a case that should have been settled to get the higher courts to review the law.
What about the elephant in the room? The amount owed?
Its not enough for them to lay out a number and expect me to accept it.
I want an accounting of every last penny from balance zero till the claim. There is an illusion that computer records are always accurate. Yet we have case after case of insider whistle blowers (Chase in a case i was reading), where the firm maintained 3 different systems. 1 for current accounts, another for accounts in collections, and another for charge -offs. There was incompatibilities between the systems each with their own different amount owed.
I know their next move will be to show basic statements, an unsigned generic card holder agreement, and say this fullfills the requirements for account stated.
But the elephant remains the room. The AMOUNT owed has not been proven. Just alleged.
Do you think that is a stronger angle by which to use discovery to seek evidence of miscalculations and errors? So as to 'buy time to consider a BK' ?