Product: Vehicle loan or lease

Between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I voluntarily returned a vehicle that I was leasing a car from No Worries Auto due to being laid off from my job due to the XXXX XXXX pandemic. According to my contract, I could terminate the lease early by returning the vehicle and paying the early termination liability within XXXX business days of the date they asked for it. I did not receive that notice from No Worries Auto, but in turn, I received a letter on XX/XX/XXXX, from Stone, Higgs, and Drexler that stated that after General Sessions court had been closed due to XXXX, the judge requested that as many matters as possible be agreed upon by consent. This would allow people to avoid coming to court due to the backlog. The letter also stated that if I agree to the debt to sign a consent order of judgement and return it in an enclosed postage-paid self-addressed envelope. I never signed any consent that I agree with that debt. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another letter that I had contacted them in regards to the debt and they notified me that they were enclosing a copy of my Lease agreement that I did not receive, a Sworn Statement of Account verifying the balance, a ledger showing debits and credits to my account with a balance of {$7900.00}, a credit application and a sales receipt dated XX/XX/XXXX for the sale of the vehicle to XXXX XXXX XXXX for {$3900.00} and when applied to the balance {$5500.00} which is incorrect from the beginning which violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by misrepresenting the actual debt and they did so on numerous occasions which is egregious. According to XXXX False, deceptive, or misleading representations or means Section XXXX, a debt collector must not falsely represent the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. In XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that attorneys engaged in debt collection are subject to the same FDCPA standards as traditional agencies, reinforcing the importance of compliance. In XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law firm 's mistaken interpretation of the FDCPA does not shield it from liability. This decision highlights the importance of due diligence in complying with debt collection laws. On Sunday, XX/XX/XXXX, I emailed Stone, Higgs, and Drexler at XXXX to disagree on this debt, the fact that XXXX XXXX XXXX breached the contract between us when they did not comply with the " Early Termination Liability '' and also that I did not agree with the amount of the debt. Also, according to the " Consent Order Of Judgment '' that I did not sign the balance owed changed from {$7900.00} to {$7300.00} which would still be incorrect according to the balance on the sale slip from XXXX XXXX XXXX which was {$5500.00}, and also on the " Sworn Statement Of Account ''. On XX/XX/XXXX, a default judgment was placed against me in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the amount of {$7300.00} with additional court costs and fees bringing the total to {$9400.00} according to the court documents. Since that time Stone, Higgs & Drexler has over garnished {$4500.00} dollars from my payroll check with XXXX XXXX where I am a case XXXX in XXXX XXXX prevention. Due to my " non-compliance, '' they initiated another garnishment order against me in XX/XX/XXXX. Stone, Higgs, & Drexler has abused the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by falsely representing the amount of debt owed and also failing to communicate that the debt is being disputed