1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

MARY MCNALLY, on behalf of herself and )

others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 15-10925

v. )

)

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ) Complaint

)

Defendant. ) Jury Trial Demanded

______________________________________ )

Nature of Action

1. Mary McNally (“Plaintiff”) brings this class action against Midland Credit 

Management, Inc. (“Defendant”) under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the acts and 

transactions giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred in substantial part in this district, and 

Defendant transacts business in this district.

Parties

4. Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in Essexville, 

Michigan.

5. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

6. Defendant is an entity who was at all relevant times engaged in the business of 

attempting to collect from Plaintiff a “debt”—in default—as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1
2

7. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

Factual Allegations

8. Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt (the “Debt”)—in 

default—now owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due MCM. 

9. Plaintiff’s obligation, or alleged obligation, owed or due, or asserted to be owed 

or due MCM, arises from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services that 

are the subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or household 

purposes—Plaintiff’s use of a Household Finance Corporation (“HFC”) personal line of credit 

with an account number ending in 51000 (the “Account”). 

10. Upon information and good faith belief, HFC charged off the Account. 

11. Upon information and good faith belief, HFC voluntarily stopped adding interest 

to the Account as of the date that it charged off the Account.

12. Upon information and good faith belief, HFC’s standard policy and procedure is 

to voluntarily stop adding interest to accounts as of the date that it charges them off.

13. Upon information and good faith belief, HFC intentionally acted in a manner 

inconsistent with any right it may have had to add interest to the Account.

14. Upon information and good faith belief, HFC voluntarily stopped sending 

periodic statements in connection with the Account as of the date that it charged off the Account.

15. Upon information and good faith belief, HFC waived its right to add interest—

whether contractual or statutory—to the Account as of the date that it charged off the Account.

16. On November 5, 2010, Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc. mailed a letter to 

Plaintiff that reads, in part:

ACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION

RE: Household Finance

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 2 of 14 Pg ID 2
3

Account #: 2909710-261

Deficiency Balance: $14624.10

* * *

Your outstanding balance, owed to the above mentioned company, has 

been assigned to Commercial Recovery Systems for collection.

CRS offers you the ability to redeem your credit standing by making it 

possible for you to settle this obligation for a fraction of what is owed. 

You must not hesitate and lose this opportunity to save money and effect a 

reporting change to your credit file.

Exhibit A. 

17. On January 1, 2012, Asset Acceptance, LLC mailed a letter to Plaintiff that reads, 

in part:

RE: HOUSEHOLD FINANCE

Original Creditor Acct #: XXXXXXXXXX1547

Asset Acceptance, LLC Acct #: 11-2858607

Current Balance: $14906.56

DISCOUNTED Settlement Balance: $3726.64

Expiration Date: 01/31/2012

* * *

We would like to help you eliminate this debt with us. Your current 

balance is $15460.08, but if you pay us $6957.04 by 10/ 31/2012, we will 

close your account and consider it paid. That's a 55% discount or a savings 

of $8503.04.Why wait? Act now!

Exhibit B.

18. On October 1, 2012, Asset Acceptance, LLC mailed a letter to Plaintiff that reads, 

in part:

RE: HOUSEHOLD FINANCE

Asset Acceptance, LLC Acct #: 11-2858607

Current Balance: $15460.08

DISCOUNTED Settlement Balance: $6957.04

Expiration Date: 10/31/2012

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 3 of 14 Pg ID 3
4

* * *

We would like to help you eliminate this debt with us. Your current 

balance is $14906.56, but if you pay us $3726.64 by 01131/2012, we will 

close your account and consider it paid. That’s a 75% discount or a 

savings of $11179.92! Why wait? Act now!

Exhibit C.

19. On May 16, 2014, Midland Credit Management, Inc. mailed a letter to Plaintiff 

that reads, in part:

MCM Account Number 8561292665

Original Creditor HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A.

Original Account Number 53810213171547

Current Balance $16,197.51

Exhibit D.

20. On August 29, 2014, Midland Credit Management, Inc. mailed a letter to Plaintiff 

that reads, in part:

MCM Account Number 8561292665

Current Owner MIDLAND FUNDING LLC

Original Creditor HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.

Current Balance $16,197.51

* * *

Due Date: 09-28-2014

Date Received: 08-29-2014

Previous Balance: $14,624.10

Interest Rate: 5.00%

Exhibit E.

21. On November 4, 2014, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., mailed a letter to 

Plaintiff that reads, in part:

Current Creditor: MIDLAND FUNDING LLC

Original Creditor: HSBC BANK NEVADA N.A.

Original Creditor Account No. XXXXXXXXXX1547

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 4 of 14 Pg ID 4
5

WWR No.: 20744639

Balance Due as of November 4, 2014: $14,624.10

* * *

Please be advised that the above referenced account has been placed with

us to collect the outstanding balance due and owing on this account to the 

current creditor referenced above. As of the date of this letter you owe the 

amount listed above

Exhibit F.

22. On January 6, 2015, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., mailed a letter to 

Plaintiff that reads, in part:

Creditor: MIDLAND FUNDING LLC

Internal No: 8561292665

Account No: XXXXXXXXXX1547

Balance: as of January 06, 2015 $14624.10

Our file No: 20744639 C A Det JOL

* * *

A lawsuit is being filed against you in the above-captioned matter. As of 

the date of this letter you owe the amount listed above. If you wish to 

resolve this matter without the necessity of a contested lawsuit and 

possible post- judgment legal proceedings, you may make arrangements 

for liquidation of the balance due and owing by contacting this office to 

make amicable arrangements for payment of this account.

Exhibit G.

Class Allegations

23. Plaintiff brings this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated.

24. Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of individuals defined as:

All persons (1) located in Michigan, (2) from whom MCM attempted to 

collect interest, or collected interest, that it added to a debt, for a period of 

time during which a preceding creditor or debt collector did not add the 

interest to the subject debt, (3) within the year preceding this complaint,

(4) and in connection with the collection of a consumer debt. 

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 5 of 14 Pg ID 5
6

All persons (1) located in Michigan, (2) to whom MCM sent an initial debt 

collection communication, (3) within the year preceding this complaint,

(4) and in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (6) that 

failed to state (a) whether interest was in fact accruing on the subject debt, 

and, if interest was accruing, the amount of interest due as of the date of 

the initial communication, or (b) the effective date as of which an amount 

would suffice to pay off the subject debt in full, or (c) the date as of which 

any unpaid accrued interest was calculated, or (d) the applicable interest 

rate. 

25. The proposed classes specifically exclude the United States of America, the State 

of Michigan, counsel for the parties, the presiding United States District Court Judge, the Judges 

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the Justices of The United States 

Supreme Court, all officers and agents MCM, and all persons related to within the third degree of 

consanguinity or affection to any of the foregoing individuals.

26. Upon information and good faith belief, the proposed classes are so numerous that 

joinder of members is impracticable.

27. The exact number of the members of the proposed classes are unknown at this 

time, but can be ascertained through appropriate discovery. 

28. Upon information and good faith belief, the classes are ascertainable in that the 

names and addresses of all members of the proposed classes can be identified by MCM’s

business records.

29. There exists a well-defined community of interest in questions of law and fact that 

affect all members of the proposed classes. 

30. These common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that may 

affect individual members of the proposed classes. 

31. These common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to: 

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 6 of 14 Pg ID 6
7

 MCM’s identical conduct with regard to all members of the proposed classes; 

 MCM’s identical conduct with regard to all members of the proposed classes; 

 The availability of statutory penalties under the FDCPA;

 The availability of attorneys’ fees under the FDCPA;

 The availability of costs under the FDCPA. 

32. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the members of the proposed classes. 

33. Plaintiff’s claims, and the claims of the members of the proposed classes, 

originate from the same conduct, practice, and procedure, on the part of MCM.

34. If brought and prosecuted individually, the claims of each member of the 

proposed classes would require proof of the same material and substantive facts.

35. Plaintiff possesses the same interests and has suffered the same injuries as each 

member of the proposed classes.

36. Plaintiff asserts identical claims, and seeks the same relief, for both herself and 

the members of the proposed classes.

37. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the 

proposed classes. 

38. Plaintiff has no interest that directly and irrevocably conflicts with the interests of 

other members of the proposed classes.

39. Plaintiff is willing and prepared to serve this Court and the member of the 

proposed classes.

40. Plaintiff’s interests are co-extensive with, and not directly antagonistic to, those of 

the absent members of the proposed classes. 

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 7 of 14 Pg ID 7
8

41. Plaintiff has retained the services of counsel who are experienced in both 

consumer protection claims and complex class action litigation.

42. Plaintiff’s counsel will vigorously prosecute this action, and will assert, protect, 

and otherwise represent both Plaintiff and all absent members of the proposed classes

43. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) and 

23(b)(1)(B) as the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed class 

would—as a practical matter—be dispositive of the interests of other members of the proposed 

classes who are not parties to the action, or could substantially impair or impede their ability to 

protect their interests.

44. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed 

classes may create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual 

members of the proposed class, which could establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

MCM. 

45. These incompatible standards of conduct and varying adjudications, on what 

would necessarily be the same essential facts, proof, and legal theories, could also create and 

allow the existence of inconsistent and incompatible rights within the proposed classes.

46. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) in that MCM has

acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the members of the proposed classes, 

making final declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate.

47. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) in that the 

questions of law and fact that are common to members of the proposed classes predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual members of the proposed classes.

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 8 of 14 Pg ID 8
9

48. Moreover, a class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversies raised in this complaint in that: 

 Individual claims by the members of the proposed classes may be impracticable 

as the costs of pursuit could far exceed what any one member of the proposed 

classes has at stake; 

 Very little litigation has been commenced over the controversies alleged in this 

complaint and individual members of the proposed classes are unlikely to have an 

interest in prosecuting and controlling separate individual actions; and 

 The concentration of litigation of these claims in one forum will achieve 

efficiency and promote judicial economy.

Count I

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)

49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-48.

50. The FDCPA at Section 1692e(2)(A) provides:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 

Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following 

conduct is a violation of this section:

* * *

(2) The false representation of—

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).

51. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely representing the character, 

amount, or legal status of the Debt, as the Debt did not include, nor could it have included, post 

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 9 of 14 Pg ID 9
10

charge off interest that HFC did not add to the Debt when it owned the Debt, and as no entity

could have added post charge off interest to the Debt after HFC waived the right to do so.

52. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely representing the character, 

amount, or legal status of Plaintiff’s debt, as MCM waived the right to collect interest on the 

Debt, or in the alternative, as MCM was estopped from collecting interest on the Debt. 

Count II 

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5)

53. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-48.

54. The FDCPA at Section 1692e(5) provides:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 

Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following 

conduct is a violation of this section:

* * *

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot be legally taken or that is not 

intended to be taken.

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).

55. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) by threatening to take an action that 

could not be legally taken as the Debt did not include, nor could it have included, post charge off 

interest that HFC did not add to the Debt when it owned the Debt, and as no entity could have 

added post charge off interest to the Debt after HFC waived the right to do so.

56. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) by threatening to take an action that 

could not be legally taken as MCM waived the right to collect interest on the Debt, or in the 

alternative, as MCM was estopped from collecting interest on the Debt. 

Count III

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10)

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 10 of 14 Pg ID 10
11

57. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-48.

58. The FDCPA at Section 1692e(10) provides:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 

Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following 

conduct is a violation of this section:

* * *

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or 

attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a 

consumer.

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).

59. Defendant violated Section 1692e(10) by using a false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation as the Debt did not include, nor could it have included, post charge off interest 

that HFC did not add to the Debt when it owned the Debt, and as no entity could have added post 

charge off interest to the Debt after HFC waived the right to do so.

60. Defendant violated Section 1692e(10) by using a false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation as MCM waived the right to collect interest on the Debt, or in the alternative, as 

MCM was estopped from collecting interest on the Debt.

61. Defendant also violated Section 1692e(10) as its May 16, 2014 and August 29, 

2014 letters to Plaintiff can be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings, one of 

which is inaccurate. See Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir. 

2011); see also Dupuy v. Weltman, Wienberg & Reis Co., 442 F. Supp. 2d 822, 827 (N.D. Cal. 

2006). 

Count IV

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1)

62. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-48.

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 11 of 14 Pg ID 11
12

63. The FDCPA at Section 1692f(1) provides:

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or 

attempt to collect any debt.

* * *

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or 

expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is 

expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by 

law.

15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

64. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) by attempting to collect an amount from 

Plaintiff not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the Debt, or permitted by law, as the 

Debt did not include, nor could it have included, post charge off interest that HFC did not add to 

the Debt when it owned the Debt, and as no entity could have added post charge off interest to 

the Debt after HFC waived the right to do so.

65. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) by attempting to collect an amount from 

Plaintiff not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the Debt, or permitted by law, as 

MCM waived the right to collect interest on the Debt, or in the alternative, as MCM was 

estopped from collecting interest on the Debt.

Count V 

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1)

66. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-48.

67. The FDCPA at section 1692g(a)(1) provides:

Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in 

connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless 

the following information is contained in the initial communication or the 

consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice 

containing—

(1) the amount of the debt;

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 12 of 14 Pg ID 12
13

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt 

of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, 

the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing 

within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is 

disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a 

copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such 

verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt 

collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirtyday period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the 

name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current 

creditor.

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1).

68. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) by failing to meaningfully disclose 

the amount of the Debt through its initial communication with Plaintiff, or within five days 

thereof.

69. In particular, Defendant did not disclose, through its initial communication with 

Plaintiff, or within five days thereof, (i) whether interest was in fact accruing, and, if interest was 

accruing, the amount of interest due as of the date of its initial communication, (ii) the effective 

date as of which an amount would suffice to pay off the Debt in full, (iii) the date as of which 

any unpaid accrued interest was calculated, or (iv) the applicable interest rate, if any.

Trial by Jury

70. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:

a) Determining that this action is a proper class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

b) Certifying Plaintiff as class a representative;

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 13 of 14 Pg ID 13
14

c) Appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel;

d) Adjudging that violated the FDCPA;

e) Awarding Plaintiff, and members of the proposed class, statutory damages;

f) Awarding Plaintiff, and members of the proposed class, actual damages;

g) Adjudging and declaring that Defendant violated the FDCPA and enjoining 

Defendant from committing further violations.

h) Awarding Plaintiff, and members of the proposed class, reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs incurred in this action;

i) Awarding Plaintiff, and members of the proposed class, any pre-judgment and 

post-judgment interest as may be allowed under the law; 

j) Awarding other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 12, 2015 Law Offices of Ronald S. Weiss

/s/ Ronald S. Weiss

Ronald S. Weiss (P48762)

7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600

West Bloomfield, MI 48322

RWeiss@YourFairDebtCollectionRights.com

248-737-8000

248-737-8003 (Fax)

Michael Greenwald 

Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC

5550 Glades Rd, Ste. 500

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Tel: (561) 826-5477

Fax: (561) 961-5684 

aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

1:15-cv-10925-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 14 of 14 Pg ID 14