Simmons v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, [case law]

[Casper]

Look at this old case law article I came across for TN.  It says the basic way JDB's do things is, in itself, a violation and you could countersue.

 

https://www.ballardspahr.com/alertspublications/legalalerts/2012-02-01_tennessee_federal_court_allows_fdcpa_claims_based_on_documentation_challenge

 

 

The debtor alleged the debt collector had falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of the debt in violation of the FDCPA in two ways: (1) as a result of its intentional business decision not to obtain a copy of the written contract or other documentation evidencing the debt prior to filing the state court action, and (2) by submitting an affidavit in support of the action executed by an individual who had no personal knowledge of the statements made in the affidavit, did not review any records of the card issuer, and did not make any other efforts to determine if the debtor actually owed the amounts claimed.

The debtor also alleged that the debt collector routinely used “virtually identical form affidavits alleging facts not in [its] possession due to lack of proper information” and, by engaging in a pattern or practice of filing lawsuits using false affidavits, had violated the FDCPA through the use of “unfair or unconscionable means” in attempting to collect a debt.

[Goody_Ouchless]

Not a whole lot to see there. Things have changed, dramatically, since 2012, in terms of the amount and quality of documentation that accompanies these debts. Also there was no result of the FDCPA claim - just the fact that PRA's MTD was denied on the grounds of sketchy documentation.