Consumer complaint received 2015-05-07
Product: Debt collection — Credit card
Issue: Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed — Debt is not mine
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (KY)

Complaint:
XXXX, XXXX & XXXX ( XXXX ), on behalf of FIA Card Services ( FIA XXXX, filed a Complaint against me personally on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, on a business debt of {$20000.00} for a defunct LLC of which I was a member. During the litigation, I discovered that FIA did not retain XXXX. Rather, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) did. Since XXXX is domiciled and licensed to practice law in XXXX, it retained XXXX to do its dirty work. Because FIA was not XXXX client, XXXX stonewalled my discovery efforts and would not produce the records I requested which would conclusively demonstrate that this account was not a personal debt. In spite of that, FIA could not prevail when it filed its motion for summary judgment. The court found that the affidavit filed was deficient. Subsequently, FIA made a settlement offer where it would dismiss the Complaint with prejudice and XXXX assured me that FIA would remove the derogatory reporting with all three major credit reporting agencies. Also, I knew that a dismissal with prejudice would require FIA to discontinue the reporting in accordance with the FCRA. The court entered the Agreed Order on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

About a month later, I figured that FIA would have stopped reporting on this account and I viewed my credit report with all three agencies. FIA was continuing with the derogatory reporting. I disputed the entries for three months. Each time, the credit reporting agencies confirmed the entries. I sent an e-mail to XXXX XXXX, XXXX attorney whom I had dealt with on this issue. He responded that he would contact his client. Thirty days later, I checked my credit reports and the reports were continuing. I got back with XXXX XXXX again. He said that he was waiting for his client to get back with him. This happened for another three months, at which time I decided that XXXX XXXX would do nothing about this violation of the FCRA. 

Because I already knew that FIA was really XXXX client, I called XXXX in XXXX XXXX. They committed to get back with me within three days. A day later, I received an e-mail from XXXX XXXX telling me that his client just got back with him and he would send me an agreement to sign, then FIA would stop reporting. I told him that I had n't developed XXXX and he should acknowledge that his client got back to him only because I contacted XXXX. I told him that I hoped there is no clause that would cause FIA to issue me a XXXX the following XXXX. XXXX XXXX, the attorney, conveniently became incompetent. He said that all he knows is that if I sign the agreement, the reporting would end even though I knew that the Agreed Order robs FIA of the benefit of reporting because of the FCRA. 

Sure enough, not only did the agreement allow FIA to issue a XXXX to me, FIA in fact issued that XXXX in XXXX XXXX. How can a debt that does not exist be cancelled? I went back to XXXX again. They told me to contact FIA regarding the XXXX and XXXX regarding everything else. I contacted FIA. They told me that XXXX is their lawyer and is the only party that can resolve this issue. I do n't know who is whose client or who the real lawyer is. Because XXXX XXXX was having problems navigating this issue, he elicited the assistance of a partner at XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX disclosed that XXXX was not licensed to practice law in Kentucky and would like to help resolve the issue if I was agreeable to it. I was. I demanded that the XXXX be withdrawn or FIA reimburse me for my tax liability associated with filing the XXXX. I computed the value of the tax due attributable to the XXXX to be {$5800.00} ( Federal ) and {$1100.00} ( state ). XXXX dragged out this issue for months and eventually offered me {$5000.00} to sign the agreement. I declined it in XXXX XXXX. I disputed the XXXX when I filed my tax return. XXXX, XXXX, and FIA have refused to resolve this issue.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation