received writ of garnishing from midland funding need advice

Recommended Posts

hi all, obviously this is a post judgement case. unfortunately i received a writ of garnishment from midland here in az. now when i say i i mean my name is on the letter, but the issue im having is it says my name and then i reads and his wife, then i t reads my mothers name. first, i dont have a wife, and second my father and i share the same name. the issue i am having is i was never served, even from the start of the complaint. in the packet i received i received a copy of all the other summons up until the garnishment. and every single one of them lists the defendant as my same name and my mothers name. now, i cant ask my father if he knew of this, unfortunately he passed away in a work accident last july. when looking thru his mail i came accross one letter from midland offering a settlement, and on that letter the last name is misspelled. another issue i am looking at, is that this is an account from bank of america, which midland, according to the summons, they started collecting in may of 2005.  the only progress i've made is filing for a hearing. now im stuck, and in need of advice and im unable to afford an attorney. i pulled my credit report, and on there is an account from bank of america, that was opened in 1995, the issue with this is that at that time i was only 12 years old. so i'm pretty sure i was unable to get a credit line on my behalf at that age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They want your money now get theirs.



az attorney general turn in a complaint

Consumer Information and Complaints                    
(602) 542-5763 (Phoenix) / Fax (602) 542-4579
(520) 628-6504 (Tucson) /


(520) 628-6500 / TDD (520) 628-6872
(877) 491-5740 / TDD (877) 881-7552
Fax (520) 628-6765

Consumer financial protection bureau turn in a complaint


Also you might call a law office and tell them you are being sued for someone else's debt.


This is who you are dealing with one of the worst in the industry.Just about every state has fined them,even tossed out all of their lawsuits.They say they will change but they never do.Its a company formed on greed and greed alone.They dont care who they hurt,whos money they take,whos credit they damage.


Get your money out of the bank they will take it


(1.) At courthouses across the United States, it has become increasingly common during the economic downturn for lawsuits to be filed against consumers to collect old debts. Lawyers who specialize in the practice are filing thousands of suits on behalf of large firms that have acquired debts from other companies. Although most people don't fight the suits and lose them by default, a Dallas woman bucked the trend last October.

Chrystal A. Snow challenged the validity of a $9,000 debt in a Dallas County Court-at-Law and countersued the debt collector for making improper phone calls, her attorney Ross Teter said. In a case that has received no media attention, Snow won her suit against Midland Funding LLC and the jury hearing the case awarded her $8.1 million -- $250 for actual damages, $100,000 for mental anguish and $8 million in punitive damages, he said.


"The jury made a finding she did not owe the debt," Teter said in a phone interview. "We argued that they violated the Texas Fair Debt Collection Act by making harassing phone calls and the jury agreed."

Midland Funding is a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, a company whose primary business is the acquisition and collection of "charged-off consumer receivable portfolios," according to its 2009 annual report filed with the Securites and Exchange Commission.

"We acquire receivable portfolios at deep discounts from their face values," the annual report states. "[W]e have invested approximately $1.4 billion to acquire 28.8 million consumer accounts with a face value of approximately $43.8 billion."


(2.)One of the country's largest debt collection businesses has agreed to overhaul its practices and pay the state of Minnesota $500,000 to settle the state's claims that it robo-signed paperwork in its collection lawsuits without verifying, or even including, basic facts and signatures.

Midland Funding LLC, a San Diego company with offices in St. Cloud, must now verify the debt it's trying to collect and the identity of who owes it, and show that information to people before the company sues them to collect.

Also in the package of changes it agreed to: it will resolve outstanding and future consumer complaints made to the state Attorney General's office, ensure that it isn't trying to collect old "zombie debt" that's beyond the statute of limitations and change the way it serves lawsuits to ensure people know they are being sued.

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced the consent judgement Wednesday at a Capitol news conference. Swanson, who sued Midland over the problems last year in Hennepin County District Court, was flanked by several Minnesotans who related disturbing tales of Midland hounding them for debts they didn't owe.

Ka Yang, 32, of St. Paul, said she finally managed to get back the $9,000 Midland took from her bank account over someone else's Visa credit card debt, but only after paying $2,000 to hire a lawyer. Yang said she was speaking out in hopes of preventing more people from going through the same thing. "I'm really angry," Yang said.

Midland signed the settlement without admitting wrongdoing. The company is owned by San Diego-based Encore Capital Group, a publicly traded debt buyer and collector that Fortune magazine has named to its "100 Fastest Growing Companies" list for the last two years. A company spokeswoman said Wednesday that Midland is working on a statement.

Midland is one the state's biggest filers of lawsuits, Swanson said, filing 15,000 cases against Minnesotans since 2008. She described an out-of-control business operation lacking even basic procedures for checking information.

Such problems are prevalent in the fast-growing debt-collection industry, she said. But she said her lawsuit last year was the first government lawsuit in the country against a debt buyer.

"This is a real problem area," Swanson told reporters. "I hope others will take a look at this."

Swanson said her office has a number of pending investigations into other debt collection operations, she said, that will likely result in more enforcement actions. She also plans to ask state lawmakers to strengthen the state's weak consumer protections regarding debt collection.

"Minnesota has some of the most lopsided creditor laws in the country when it comes to collecting debts," she said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bank account garnishment allows a creditor to seize funds from your checking and savings accounts without your consent. Collection agencies sometimes resort to garnishing bank accounts when a debtor refuses to pay a delinquent debt. Although a collection agency can garnish your bank accounts in certain circumstances, it must follow the proper legal procedure in order to do so.

How it Works

Your bank will not allow a collection agency to garnish your bank account unless the company presents it with a writ of garnishment, which is a court document noting that the collection agency has the court's permission to seize funds. A collection agency cannot obtain a writ of garnishment without first winning a lawsuit against you.

Once the bank receives the writ of garnishment, it freezes your accounts for up to 30 days, depending on your state's laws, before turning the contents of your accounts over to the collection agency. A collection agency must know where your bank is in order to serve your financial institution with the writ of garnishment.

Garnishment Exemptions

A collection agency can seize wages you deposit into your bank accounts, monetary gifts and your previously deposited tax refunds. It cannot garnish federal benefits such as Social Security payments, military annuities, student loans or survivor benefits. Collection agencies also cannot garnish unemployment payments, retirement pensions and public assistance payments. You must immediately notify your bank of any exempt funds within your bank account to protect them from garnishment.

Joint Bank Accounts

A collection agency can seize all non-exempt funds within your private bank accounts. If you hold a joint bank account with another individual, however, the collection agency must adhere to your state's laws regarding joint bank account garnishment. Although the company can still garnish funds from a joint bank account, certain states limit collection agencies to seizing half of the funds present within the account. If the money in the joint account does not belong to you, filing an exemption claim noting that the funds belong to the other account holder may protect the account from seizure. Whether you have this option also depends upon your state's specific laws regarding joint accounts and garnishment.

Fighting Garnishment

A collection agency can periodically garnish your bank accounts until it recovers the full amount you owe. You can revoke the company's right to seize your accounts by appealing the court judgment that grants the collection agency its garnishment rights. Although grounds for appeal vary, if the company failed to serve you with proper notice of the lawsuit that provided it with its right to garnish or you do not owe the debt in question, you can file a motion with the court to have the collection agency's judgment vacated. Should you succeed, the collection agency will lose its right to garnish your bank accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is somewhat similar to what happened to me except I got a wage garnishment and a lien notice.  I was never served and was able to get the judgment set aside and am currently fighting with MCM.  I would love to follow your case so I am hoping you keep this thread updated.  :)


Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello, im back. so today i had my hearing, i showed up, and their attorney showed up 15 min late. so i started the hearing without them, i explained to the judge how i was never served. and showed proof of it by having my current address' contract and closing date which was dated almost a month before they claimed they served me at my old address. the judge wanted to quash the garnishment, but the attorney asked for another hearing to give him time to research the documents he has. now one thing that really upset me is how can the judge continue when they never served, not having proof of who they are after, me or my father, and also the fact that they obtained judgement while never serving me, which would be a violation of service procedures wouldnt it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would file an immediate motion to dismiss with prejudice. Want of prosecution.


It is clear that even the attorney does not know who they are suing nor what the complaint is about. It is not your fault that the attorney did not perform due diligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is contained in the court records regarding the service of the summons and complaint?  Is there a certificate of service?  Do they provide an address where the summons was supposedly served?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to go to the court clerk and get a copy of the whole case, not just the docket sheet.


We need to see the process of service certificate and what else has transpired during the case.


Post the info here minus your identifying info.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.