Midland f unding bought my husband 's   XXXX   account, as he was unable to pay and defaulted on or about   XX/XX/XXXX  . The first notice from Midland dated   XX/XX/XXXX  in bold states " NOTICE OF NEW OWNERSHIP AND PRE-LEGAL   REVIEW ''. In initially reading it we did not recognize it as a debt collector and assumed they had the bought the account from  XXXX  and did not need to provide any debt collection notice so we could dispute it. The first notice give s two alternatives, 1 ) pay {$750.00} or 2 ) call us. It gives a date of  XX/XX/XXXX  as the payment date. Th e second letter is dated   XX/XX/XXXX  , well before the initial due date o f  XX/XX/XXXX . It  is titled in bold " PRE-LEGAL NOTIFICATION '. This notice does not identify itself as a debt collection company on the front page either. It claims it has made several attempts to contact us, however, we only recieve d one prior notice, described above. We did not remember receiving any calls identifying Midland Credit as the caller nor were any messages left for us to call them. The second letter gives a due d ate of   XX/XX/XXXX . I t too gives  two options : 1 ) mail in {$750.00} or 2 ) call us ..... The final and thi rd letter is dated    XX/XX/XXXX  titled " Notice of Legal Placement ''. On the front of this letter it is not   identifying itself as a debt collector. The same amount of {$6000.00} dif fers from the other amount of {$6000.00}, however, this is the only amount demanded. There was not any attempt to try to settle for less unlike other debt  collectors which we had received correspondence from in the same time frame and which identified themselves as debt collectors and which had the 30 day notice on the front page   which led us to believ e Midland was not a de bt collector since it had purchased the debt and on the first contact stated it was already under pre-legal review, leading us to believe it had the same status as the original creditor,  XXXX .    Mi  dland sued my husband in JP  court and a hearing was had o n  XX/XX/XXXX .   The  JP ruled for Midland without allowing my husband to raise any defenses in regards to the improper notice, violations of any state or federal laws, or or their failure to post a bond in accordance with the Texas Finance cod e. At the " mock '' trial I was not allowed to present any form of defense on behalf of my husband. It was only in preparation for the hearing that I studied the communications fr om Midland that I discovered the back of the letters contained language identifying Midland as a debt collector and the 30 day notice dispute language. By this time it was too late, and the JP did not allow us to present this  as a defense. A judgment was entered against my husband on   XX/XX/XXXX .    We claim the Midland both in substance and form misrepresented itself as a creditor with the same status as the original creditor rather than a debt collector obliged to provide us with notice to dispute the debt, causing us to disregard the 30 day validation. By the time it was recognized that it was a debt collector in preparing for the " mock trial '' we were not allowed to present any of these defenses and Midland now has a judgment in the same amount as  XXXX . We had paid  XXXX  more {$6300.00} in a  3 1/2 ye ar span with the balance remaining the same due to the high interest rate and late fees. After 12 years of overpaying  XXXX  we succumbed to the idea that we could no longer financially pay them. With  Midland 's Notice of New Ownership and Pre-legal Review, w e assumed they bought that balance from  XXXX . We were never provided with any settlement offer less than the debt owed  XXXX  and assumed they paid as much.  XXXX , prior to selling the debt offered to settle for a one time payment of {$1800.00} on   XX/XX/XXXX ,  however we did not have the funds and in good conscious felt we had paid them multiple times over. The  Midland letters threatened legal action on all three communications in bold on the front page. The front pages did not adequately apprise us of their status as mere third party debt collectors. We assert that the validation notice as well as the debt communication notice were hidden on the backside without any noticeable reference of such status on the front. Midland used tactics designed to ensure that we as consumers would be deprived of our legal rights to dispute the validity of the debt in 30 days or the right to recieve a verification of the debt had we known we had the rig ht to dispute it on the face of the letters which emphasized "   Legal Action ''.
We claim that the methods used in Midland 's sole three letters were not effective in conveying to us our rights. The only message we rationally perceived was that the predominance of the threat of legal action. The communications by Midland were misleading both in the format of the 3 letters and the content. It purposely failed to identify itself as a debt colle  ctor on the front page by stating it bought the debt, not merely collecting on behalf of  XXXX , and emphasized in large bold print the eminence of of a lawsuit.