Consumer complaint received 2019-04-15
Company: Weber & Olcese, PLC
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:
In XX/XX/XXXX I was offered a position with XXXX XXXX in Michigan, which I accepted and began working with this company in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX required me to be in Michigan in XX/XX/XXXX and one two weeks out of every month for the remainder of the year. 

I maintained my residence in Nebraska and never moved to Michigan. I stayed at a hotel for the entire month of XXXX and then, in order to be more cost effective, I rented a house in XXXX XXXX, which XXXX reimbursed me for. This property was for myself and one other employee who was based out of Texas. During this same time period, I brought my personal vehicle to XXXX so that I did not have the added expense of renting a vehicle. While XXXX did reimburse me for rental costs, it was more cost effective for me to drive my own vehicle. Not to mention, the  insurance was immensely cheaper, and as a XXXX, I was more comfortable in my own truck. 

While it appears that this lawsuit began some time ago, I was just recently notified of same, when my PREVIOUS employer, XXXX XXXX XXXX, sent me a copy of a garnishment notice. I am still unsure as to who the company representing the original creditor is, as in my research I have located confusing and conflicting information showing both Weber and Olcese and XXXX XXXX and at this point am unsure as to who is representing who. 

I have attempted to verify the debt is valid with Weber and Olcese ; however, they have been unable to provide me with an original signed contract or billing statements representing the entire time they have indicated this card was in use.

Weber and Olcese did provide me a copy of the judgment they filed, as well as their proof of service. The process servers notes on the Motion and Verification for Alternate Service confirm that it was a male staying at the property when they spoke to the neighbor, " Neighbor XXXX female at XXXX confirmed address - said HE drives a truck ''. While the process server may in fact have heard a TV on in the property, it was not me staying there at that time. The process server goes on to note that " defendant has had plenty of time is evading service. '' If evading service means that I was in Nebraska, at MY HOME, then I guess that could be construed as an accurate statement. 

The process server then posted the debt lawsuit documents on the door. These documents were NOT in an envelope or concealed in any manner from third party viewing. They were affixed to the front outside door with tape, and were discovered and taken by the landlord, who proceeded to send pictures of each page of the document to the party that was at the property that week, in addition to my work. 

My lease at the property was terminated shortly after this incident occurred. It seemed coincidental at the time, it doesnt any longer. It appears as if my lease was terminated due to the information posted at the property. 

At that point, I was in Nebraska working remotely, and was only in Michigan for one week out of every one or two months. For this reason, I did not establish another rental in Michigan. 

The lawsuit, judgment, and any other entries of default that have been filed into a court system in Michigan, should never have occurred as I was never a resident of Michigan in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. Hence the Nebraska 21 county license plates and a mailing address in XXXX, Nebraska. My state income taxes were also filed as a resident of Nebraska, not Michigan. 

On another note, as youll notice, the last 4 pages of the documents they provided to me for verification, are for an entirely different person. I would wager to guess that this person, and every other person they are filing suit against, would be less than pleased to note the obvious carelessness and lack of oversight in their business practices. Are they able to state with any certainty that MY information hasn't been inadvertently sent to another??

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation