Class Action Claims Ohio Law Firm Unlawfully Sued to Collect Debts Discharged in Bankruptcy

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by attempting to collect on debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy.

The plaintiff, an Ocean County, New Jersey resident, claims in the 15-page case that she was sued by the Ohio law firm in state court on behalf of a creditor in an attempt to collect on a discharged debt. The suit alleges Weltman, Weinberg & Reis sent the plaintiff misleading debt collection letters intended to cause the woman to “suffer a harmful disadvantage” in deciding which course of action to take.

According to the lawsuit out of New Jersey federal court, the defendant has violated the FDCPA, a law designed to ensure that consumers are “fully and truthfully apprised of the facts and of their rights” so as to allow them to make informed decisions with regard to the debt collection process.

“The purpose of the FDCPA is to provide information that helps consumers to choose intelligently,” the complaint says. “The Defendant’s false representations misled the Plaintiff in a manner that deprived Plaintiff of his or her right to enjoy these benefits.”

The plaintiff says she took out a private $11,000 loan in 2004 after her graduation from law school in order to prepare for the Pennsylvania bar examination. According to the suit, the loan from National City Bank through the Access Group was meant to pay for preparation materials for the exam and living expenses while the plaintiff focused on studying. The case says the loan was assigned to the Access Group in June 2005.

Per the complaint, the plaintiff filed in November 2011 a Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy in which the loan was included. The suit says the loan was then discharged in May 2012 as part of the bankruptcy petition.

Despite the loan’s discharge, the defendant, according to the suit, filed an action against the plaintiff in June 2020 seeking to collect on the loan. The lawsuit stresses that at the time the state court action was filed, the loan had already been discharged in bankruptcy, and the statute of limitations on the debt had run out.

After the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the state court action based on the fact that the loan had been discharged in bankruptcy—a motion the defendant opposed, according to the complaint—the court granted the plaintiff’s motion and the case was dismissed with prejudice, the lawsuit says. According to the case, the defendant violated the plaintiff’s rights to not be the target of misleading debt collection communications, to a trustful and fair debt collection process, and to receive certain information from the law firm regarding her FDCPA rights.

The suit alleges the defendant’s communications contained “confusing and incorrect information” intended to put the plaintiff at a disadvantage when deciding how to proceed, whether by hiring an attorney, representing herself, paying off the debt, engaging in a payment plan or filing for bankruptcy, among other options. Per the case, the defendant’s communication “frustrated Plaintiff’s ability to intelligently choose his or her response.”

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.