Consumer complaint received 2019-10-07
Company: Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.
State: MI
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt
Sub-issue: Didn't receive enough information to verify debt

Complaint:
First, the originally summons was filed on unknown date. Per this summons and complaint summons was issued without a date and without an expiration date. I have not received any notification from this law office regarding the claim made against me. Thus, I was never provided a chance to fairly respond to such claims made against me within your courts. The request by the plaintiff to file a second summons was then granted on XX/XX/2019 with an expiration date of XX/XX/2019. Because the original summons is not dated, it is unclear if this summons was  potentially filed prior to the original expiration date of the original summons. Per this summons, the plaintiff does not provide any statements or information regarding the rationale of bringing claims against me. Thus, this would not allow me the opportunity to properly or adequately review the plaintiffs statements made against me. 

Next, the plaintiff filed the second summons onXX/XX/2019with an expiration date of XX/XX/2019. The plaintiff also filed a Order Regarding Alternative Service was also filed and issued. This document was accompanied with a complaint. It is unclear why the plaintiff failed to file a complaint with the original summons with your court. 

The plaintiff states that this said complaint and summons was provided through method of : first-class mail, tacking or firmly affixing to the door, and certified mail. To date, mail has not been received by the defendant as proposed by the plaintiff. It is unclear how two separate methods of mailing through the United States Postal Service can not be validated, or, why the plaintiff has not provided proof of such for my personal review. 

Additionally, in the Order Regarding Alternative Service, the plaintiff alleges that service of process upon the defendant can not be reasonably made as provided in MCR 2.105. It is unclear of why the plaintiff deemed process service unreasonable. I have not experienced any issues with receiving other personal items and documents through first- class mail. I have not experienced any issue with receiving certified mail from various businesses. In fact, I have not experienced any issues with the delivery of mail while residing at this residence. It is unclear why the plaintiff filed a Order Regarding Alternative Service when an original method of service never occurred. It is unclear of what and/or why the plaintiff requested an alternative to. A alternative who be under the pretense that an original attempt was made by the plaintiff ; which can not be validated. Again, it remains unclear of the logic and/or rationale of requesting an alternative means to an event where an original event has not occurred. It is very concerning that plaintiff would request alternative services being aware of their failure to make an original attempt. 


Likewise, the first and ONLY attempt was made on XX/XX/2019. At this time, I arrived home to find a Summons, Second Summons, and a Order Regarding Alternative Service tacked to the door of my residence. This is when the plaintiff provided a complaint and summons. The complaint attached was extremely vague in nature in the claims made against me, the defendant. This fact that an undated, Summons was provided with a Second Summons indicates that the plaintiff did not properly serve the original summons. 

In fact, it is unclear if the first summons is valid ; as this summons is undated and does not have any signature to indicate review and acceptance by a court clerk. Further, the second summons filed by the plaintiff indicates there is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in the complaint. Based on the plaintiffs statement in the second summons, a first summons would not be needed regarding the said transaction. It also remains unclear as to WHEN the first summons was actually filed. Thus, providing possible rationale as to why the first summons is undated and not signed by a court clerk ; why a complaint was not provided with the first summons, and why a complaint and summons was only provided with an Order Regarding Alternative Service. 

Second, the address of which the plaintiff implies attempts of due diligence were made by requesting an Order Regarding Alternative Service on the same date the second Summons was filed. XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX has been my living address since XXXX. The State of Michigan will indicate such in the updating of my address with their office. Also, this address is where I receive numerous pieces of mail and billing statements. It is unclear as why the defendant would not be able to find this address and provide timely process service. I am a registered voter in this district. I am insured in this district with this address. 

Third, on the second summons and complaint filed by the plaintiff on XX/XX/2019,  the plaintiff stated under the General Civil Cases portion that there is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in the complaint. The affidavit does not provide factual proof this account is indeed an account I have applied for and/or opened. It provides an undated, old billing statement indicating impending a charge off of the account presented. It provides am undated, old billing statement indicating a past due balance of the account presented. There is no supportive to indicate documentation provided to support the account being past due, the alleged amount past due, or how that amount was concluded and calculated. 

The plaintiff also indicated this in the first summons. This precludes the statements that ANY summons was filed timely on the behalf of the plaintiff. It further brings into great question the validity of the alleged filed first summons that is undated and unsigned by any court official. This also brings into the integrity of ethics of the plaintiff. 



Moreover, in XXXX of 2019, the plaintiff originally completed the said complaint alleged against the defendant. Yet, the first AND ONLY attempt to contact me regarding this manner was XX/XX/2019. 

I again go back to the plaintiffs attempt to present an appearance of timely and ethical practices in this case. As I was concerned by the unethical practices by this office, I began to do some personal discovery on my own about the Weltman, Weinberg, & Reis firm. What I found is that this office consistently had multiple violates of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Several suits, including class action, have been filed against this office, not only by consumers, but by government agencies such as the Consumer Protection Bureau. 
This is exactly what this office is subjecting me to. Based on this information, not only do I feel this case should be dismissed with prejudice based on the information provided, I have filed complaints with the XXXX XXXX XXXX of Michigan, the Michigan Attorney General, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission. 


NOW, today, I have received a default request in the mail from the same office, dated XX/XX/2019. Please note that the date of the postmark of the mail is XX/XX/2019 for failure to appear. HOWEVER, I was NEVER served any paperwork to ever appear regarding this manner. I did submit a response to their summons TIMELY on XX/XX/2019. However, once again, this office unethically operates attempting to collect on a debt that they have failed to validate on SEVERAL occasions when this was requested in writing. Yet again, this office has intentionally failed to make proper and timely notification in attempt to illegal collect against a debt that they continue to FAIL to properly validate in accordance to the law. The practices this office utilizes is HIGHLY unethical, deceptive, and illegal. 

In closing, I do not agree with the statements of the plaintiff, or their attempt to bring forth a claim against me which they have made multiple conflicting statements on court documents. In this complaint, the defendant makes several false statements in regards to attempts to serve me with proper notification of this case. With the newest information I have provided about the practices of this office, I do not think it would fair or ethical for this case to move forward.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation