Consumer complaint received 2023-07-22
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC (GA)

There is no case between Complainant, XXXX XXXX XXXX and Respondent, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and its Managing Partner, Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX in the State of Georgia. Respondent will attempt to direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) attention away from the facts, material facts, and undisputed material facts by alleging the issue is in litigation. The issue is straightforward, the Law Firm-mill, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and its Managing Partner, Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX is vigorously attempting to collect the wrong amount that is alleged due was made aware and continue to attempt to collect the wrong amount that is allegedly due, {$210000.00}. 
Complainant unpaid balance is {$65000.00} due on the loan that is not in dispute and uncontested. 
XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX, hired the Law Firm-mill, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and its Managing Partner, Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX to collect the wrong amount that is alleged due, {$210000.00}. It is a fact, material fact and undisputed material fact that Complainant unpaid balance is {$65000.00}. Respondent has done nothing to dispute this material fact. Respondent submitted a payoff quote to the District Court as competent evidence. Respondent payoff quote is insufficient and not valid to show Complainant detail amount due since paying on the loan since XXXX and never defaulted on the loan. XX/XX/XXXX, debt collection letter was demanding {$180000.00}. The Law Firm-mill, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and its Managing Partner, Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect {$210000.00}. The monthly statement that alleged {$1100.00} for the regular payments is factually incorrect. The XX/XX/XXXX letter showing {$360.00} is the regular payments is correct. 
The Law Firm-mill, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and its Managing Partner, Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX has misrepresented to the District Court and the Court of Appeals the wrong amount the is alleged due without producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, evidence of default and or debt validation letter/debt verification letter. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX ordeal started, On and about XXXX of XXXX when XXXX contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX and admitted he was in default for failure to pay a mortgage installment. XXXX XXXX XXXX was not in default on his loan for non-payment as alleged on and about XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Misrepresentation by McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and its Managing Partner, Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX, the payments received and applied to the Loan since its origination have brought it current only through XX/XX/XXXX. And XXXX XXXX XXXX has been in default on his loan for non-payment since XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX is a willful misrepresentation to XXXX and to the District Court.

The District Court admitted, There is some evidence suggesting that XXXX made payments to XXXX in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX totaling {$900.00}. It is a fact, material fact and undisputed material fact that XXXX XXXX XXXX was not in default as alleged, for non-payment since XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and the Law Firm-mill, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and its Managing Partner, Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX did not produce the mortgage, the unpaid note, evidence of default and or debt validation letter/debt verification letter with the District Court during discovery or otherwise to obtain summary judgment in a foreclosure case. Summary Judgement is improper in the instant case.

Respondent received Summary Judgement for the willful misrepresentation that is clear and unambiguous. Complainant proved Respondent competent evidence that the amount of {$210000.00} Respondent is attempting to collect is wrong. Complainant have requested Respondent to provide him with detail information to prove that the amount of {$210000.00} Respondent is attempting to collect is correct and Respondent has not provided any competent information or evidence to date. Proof is required. 
The Law Firm-mill, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and its Managing Partner, Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX continue to attempt to collect the wrong amount and admitted : " Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you are advised that this office may be deemed to be a debt collector and any information obtained may be used for that purpose. '' Disclaimer by McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC : " Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you are advised that this office may be deemed to be a debt collector and any information obtained may be used for that purpose. '' The Eleventh Circuit has stated that this disclaimer does not relieve a Law Firm from being a debt collection agency if the Law Firm collect debts and or attempt to collect debts, directly, indirectly and by litigation. McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC is attempting to collect an alleged debt by litigation and has not been banned in the State of Georgia for their unlawful misconduct.

Here, Respondent is attempting to collect the wrong amount that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and Complainant has a legal duty to report the unlawful misconduct that occurred in the State of Georgia.