UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MELISSA FRET, CASE NO: 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

/

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND 

1. Plaintiff, MELISSA FRET ("Plaintiff” or “Mrs. Fret”) brings this action against

BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC (“Defendant” or “BHMS”) for violations of the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 50 U.S.C. §3901 et. seq. (“SCRA) and the Florida Consumer 

Collection Practices act, Florida Statute §559.72 et. seq. (“FCCPA”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises

under the laws of the United States.

3. Supplemental jurisdiction exists for Plaintiff’s FCCPA claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367. 

4. Venue here is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the

events giving rise to the claim occurred in Broward County, Florida and Defendant transacts 

business in this district. 

PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by Florida Statute §559.55(8).

6. Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action was a resident of

Broward County. 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 1 of 12
7. Plaintiff is the spouse of a servicemember as defined by 50 U.S.C §3911(4)(A). 

8. Defendant BHMS is a property management company Missouri Corporation with 

its principal place of business in the state of Iowa with a registered agent in the state of Florida 

listed as CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY at 1201 Hays Street Tallahassee, FL 32301. 

9. BHMS manages an apartment complex known as The Avant at Pembroke Pines 

located at 11801 Pembroke Rd, Pembroke Pines, FL 33025. See https://livebh.com/apartments/theavant-at-pembroke-pines/ (last visited September 23, 2022). 

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

The SCRA 

10. Congress enacted the SCRA to: 

a. provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense through protection 

extended by this Act to servicemembers of the United States to enable such 

persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation; and 

b. provide for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings 

and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers 

during their military service. (50 U.S.C. § 3902) 

11. The SCRA should be construed liberally. See LeMaistre v. Leffers, 333 U.S. 

1,6 (1948) (“The Act should be read with an eye friendly to those who dropped their affairs 

to answer their country’s call.”). 

12. Under 50 U.S.C. §3955, the lessee on a lease may terminate such a lease at 

any time after --- 

 (A) the lessee's entry into military service;

 (B) the date of the lessee's military orders described in paragraph (1)(B) or 

 (2)(B) of subsection (b), as the case may be 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 2 of 12
13. The SCRA grants any aggrieved person a private right of action and the right to 

obtain equitable relief, monetary damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees, and “all 

other appropriate relief.” See 50 U.S.C. §4042, 4043. 

The FCCPA

14. Consumer protection statutes are remedial in nature and should be liberally 

construed in favor of the public. See Samara Dev. Corp. v. Marlow, 556 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 

1990). 

15. “The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) is a laudable legislative 

attempt to curb what the Florida Legislature has evidently found to be a series of abuses in the area 

of debtor-creditor relations. The FCCPA is to be construed in a manner that is protective of the 

consumer.” Laughlin v. Household Bank, Ltd., 969 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 

16. “The Florida Legislature, in enacting the FCCPA, has further defined and protected 

an individual’s right of privacy in the State of Florida.” Id. 

17. Under the FCCPA, “[a] plaintiff is not required to prove actual damages, but only a 

violation of one of the prohibited practices in the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.” Id. 

18. The FCCPA defines the term “debt” as “any obligation or alleged obligation of a 

consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or 

services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household 

purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.” Fla. Stat. § 559.55(6) 

(emphasis added).

19. The FCCPA defines the term “consumer” as “any natural person obligated or 

allegedly obligated to pay any debt.” Fla. Stat. § 559.55(8) (emphasis added). 

20. The FCCPA mandates that “no person” shall engage in certain practices in collecting 

consumer debt. Fla. Stat. § 559.72. This language includes all unlawful attempts at collecting 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 3 of 12
consumer debts by creditors and debt collectors alike. See Williams v. Streeps Music Co., 333 So. 

2d 65, 67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976); see also Schauer v. GMAC, 819 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2002); Gann v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 145 So. 3d 906, 908 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2014). 

21. Defendants are each a “person” subject to the provisions of Florida Statute §559.72 

because said section applies to “any person” who collects or attempts to collect a consumer debt as

defined by Florida Statute §559.55(1). 

22. The FCCPA applies to BHMS as a “debt collector” because such a term means “any 

person who uses any instrumentality of commerce within this state, whether initiated from within 

or outside this state, in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts, or 

who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to 

be owed or due another.” Florida Statute §559.55(7). 

23. Additionally, the FCCPA provides that no person shall “[d]isclose to a person other 

than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the debtor’s reputation, whether or not for 

credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that the other person does not have a 

legitimate business need for the information or that the information is false.” Fla. Stat. § 559.72(5). 

24. Florida Statute § 559.72(9) requires that no person shall “[c]laim, attempt, or 

threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the 

existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.” 

25. The FCCPA creates a private right of action under Florida Statute § 559.77(1) and 

any person who violates any provision of the FCCPA is liable for actual damages, statutory 

damages not exceeding $1,000, court costs, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and equitable relief 

pursuant to Section 559.77(2). 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 4 of 12
Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 5 of 12
Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 6 of 12
Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 7 of 12
33. Mrs. Fret reviewed her available credit reports to see that BHMS had referred her 

account with Avant at Pembroke Pines to Rent Recovery Solutions, LLC claiming $800 was owed. 

34. Based on information and belief, this $800 collection account appears on Mrs. Frets 

credit files with Equifax and Trans Union Resident Screening. The reporting to Equifax appeared 

on Mrs. Fret’s credit file with the following image 

35. Unfortunately, Mrs. Fret was forced to pay an increased deposit to her new 

apartment complex because of the collections account. 

36. As a result, Mrs. Fret disputed the reporting by sending dispute letters to Equifax, 

Trans Union Resident Screening, and Rent Recovery Solutions, LLC to have such negative and 

inaccurate information removed so it would no longer affect her in future credit or resident 

applications. 

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF 50 U.S.C. §3955 

37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference her allegations in paragraphs 1 – 36 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 8 of 12
38. Pursuant to §3955 of the SCRA Defendant was required to terminate Plaintiff’s lease 

when she notified them of her military orders. 

39. Plaintiff provided the military orders promptly, yet Defendant completely ignored 

their duties under the SCRA and instead proceeded to treat Plaintiff’s account as any other 

collection of rent or unpaid amounts. 

40. As a result of Defendant’s SCRA violations Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in 

multiple forms including having to pay an increased security deposit at her new apartment complex

and other credit damages. 

41. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs pursuant 

to 50 U.S.C. §4042 and punitive damages pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §4043 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, prays this Honorable Court to enter the following relief against 

BHMS of actual damages, punitive damages, Attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs, interest 

as permitted by law, and such other and further relief including as the Court deems equitable and 

just under the circumstances.

COUNT II – VIOLATIONS OF FLA. STAT. §559.72(5) 

AGAINST BHMS FOR DISCLOSURES TO RENT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC

42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference her allegations in paragraphs 1 – 36 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

43. At all times relevant to this action, BHMS is subject to and must abide by the law of 

Florida, including Florida Statute § 559.72. 

44. BHMS violated Florida Statute § 559.72(5) by disclosing to a person other than the 

Plaintiff or his family information affecting Plaintiff’s reputation, whether or not for credit 

worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that the other person does not have a legitimate 

business need for the information or that the information is false. 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 9 of 12
45. Specifically, BHMS disclosed false information affecting Plaintiff’s reputation to 

Rent Recovery Solutions, LLC: that Plaintiff’s owed $800 despite lawfully terminating her lease 

under the SCRA. 

46. “Any person who fails to comply with any provision of s. 559.72 is liable for actual 

damages and for additional statutory damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000, 

together with court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff. In determining the 

defendant’s liability for any additional statutory damages, the court shall consider the nature of the 

defendant’s noncompliance with s.559.72, the frequency and persistence of the non-compliance, and 

the extent to which the noncompliance was intentional.” Fla. Stat. 559.77(2) (emphasis added). 

47. As a result of BHMS’s violations, Plaintiff suffered damages, including but not 

limited to, time spent addressing Defendant’s illegal collection practices, damage to her reputation 

for credit worthiness, misrepresentation of an amount to a third party, and the emotional and mental 

distress associated with BHMS actions or inactions. 

48. Damages in the form of reputation being affected are the “class of injury where 

damages are difficult to prove and at the same time provide a penalty to dissuade parties . . . from 

engaging in collection practices which may have been heretofore tolerated industry wide.” See 

Laughlin v. Household Bank, 969 So. 2d 509, 513 (Fla. 1st DCA. 2007) (quoting Harris v. Beneficial 

Finance Company of Jacksonville, 338 So.2d 196, 200 (Fla. 1976)). Accordingly, Plaintiff “is not 

required to prove actual damages, but only a violation of one of the prohibited practices in the 

FCCPA.” Id. “As discussed above, by enacting section 559.77, the Legislature intended to provide 

statutory damages in an area where the amount of damages are difficult to calculate.” Id. at 514. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in her favor 

and against BHMS for: actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages pursuant to Fla. 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 10 of 12
Stat. §559.77; attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs of the instant suit; and such other or 

further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT III – VIOLATIONS OF FLA. STAT. 559.72(9) 

AGAINST BHMS 

49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference her allegations in paragraphs 1 – 36 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

50. At all times relevant to this action, BHMS is subject to and must abide by the law of 

Florida, including Florida Statute § 559.72.

51. BHMS violated Florida Statute § 559.72(9) by claiming, attempting, or threatening 

to enforce a debt when Defendant knew that the debt was not legitimate, or asserting the existence of 

some other legal right when Defendant knew that right did not exist. 

52. Specifically, BHMS’ communications to Plaintiff via email as detailed above claim 

that the residential lease supersedes Plaintiff’s rights under the SCRA and illegally holds her 

responsible for early termination. 

53. “Any person who fails to comply with any provision of s. 559.72 is liable for actual 

damages and for additional statutory damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000, 

together with court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff. In determining the 

defendant’s liability for any additional statutory damages, the court shall consider the nature of the 

defendant’s noncompliance with s.559.72, the frequency and persistence of the non-compliance, and 

the extent to which the noncompliance was intentional.” Fla. Stat. 559.77(2) (emphasis added). 

54. As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiff suffered damages, including but not 

limited to, time spent addressing Defendant’ illegal collection practices and related emotional 

distress. 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 11 of 12
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in her favor 

and against BHMS for: actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages pursuant to Fla. 

Stat. §559.77; attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs of the instant suit; and such other or 

further relief as the Court deems proper.

JURY DEMAND

55. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

 Respectfully submitted,

 

SHARMIN & SHARMIN, P.A. 

/s/ Kevin Rajabalee, Esq. 

Fla. Bar. No. 119948 

kevin@sharminlaw.com 

Eiman Sharmin, Esq. 

FBN: 716391 

830 North Federal Highway 

Lake Worth, FL 33460 

Main: 561-655-3925 

Direct: 561-296-9109 

Fax: (844) 921-1022 

eiman@sharminlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 0:22-cv-61820-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 12 of 12