Consumer complaint received 2025-02-22 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Acct last for XXXX Amount {$44000.00} Improper Service : Under Rule 106 ( b ), when a court authorizes substituted service, it must be reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the me. Proper service is a fundamental due process requirement, and failure to comply with the terms of an alternate service order deprives the court of jurisdiction over me. LVNV failure to send the required first-class mailing constitutes a violation of the service order and amounts to an attempt to obtain a default judgment through improper means.

Further, under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 108, when service is made by a method other than personal delivery, strict compliance with court-ordered service procedures is mandatory. Plaintiffs failure to perfect service by failing to send first-class mail, as required, invalidates any presumption of proper notice and renders their claim subject to dismissal. Plaintiff also failed to attach a required affidavit of due diligence with their motion for alternate service as mandated by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106 ( b ). Without such an affidavit, the court lacked the necessary basis to authorize alternative service. As a result, LVNV service was defective, depriving the court of jurisdiction over me, and making me answer under duress.

2. Lack of Standing : LVNV was given 30 days to respond plus another 60 days in which they have refused to provide any of the necessary documents as required by law. LVNV has failed to establish a valid and unbroken chain of title demonstrating legal ownership of the alleged debt. The Bill of Sale does not list Resurgent Acquisitions, LLC as a purchaser, yet Resurgent appears in the Transfer Agreement as the entity transferring the debt to Plaintiff ( LVNV Funding, LLC ). LVNV has not provided any evidence demonstrating how Resurgent obtained ownership of the debt from XXXXXXXX XXXX 
Additionally, the Transfer Agreement does not contain any direct authorization from XXXX XXXX for a secondary transfer, nor does it include a signature from XXXX XXXX  acknowledging or approving the transfer from Resurgent to LVNV. The agreement merely states that assets were delivered by XXXXXXXX XXXX  but does not explicitly confirm a sale or legal transfer to Resurgent. This missing link in the chain of title renders Plaintiff 's claim defective, as there is no verified transfer from XXXX to Resurgent, nor from XXXX directly to LVNV.

Moreover, LVNV has failed to provide a signed contract, account history, or legally binding purchase agreement proving my liability. Instead, LVNV relies on statements coupons without signatures, and generic summaries, which are insufficient under Texas Business & Commerce Code 3.309 ( b ) and Texas Finance Code 392.101. Under Texas law, a debt collector must provide an unbroken chain of title linking the original creditor to the entity seeking enforcement, which LVNV has failed to do.

Because LVNV has not demonstrated a lawful assignment of debt, a valid creditor-to-assignee transfer, or an enforceable contract signed by myself, LVNV lacks standing to enforce the alleged obligation. LVNV has also failed to produce a valid assignment of debt, a contract signed by Defendant, or legally sufficient evidence of ownership, 3. Failure to Validate or Verify the Debt : LVNV has failed to properly validate the alleged debt as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g. Under this statute, a debt collector must provide a consumer with a written validation notice within five days of initial communication, informing them of their right to dispute the debt and request verification. If the consumer disputes the debt in writing, the collector must cease collection efforts until they provide sufficient validation of the debt. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Defendant sent a formal request via certified mail ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) demanding an investigation and verification of the alleged debt. LVNV Funding, LLC failed to respond to this request. Instead of fulfilling their legal obligation to provide proper validation, LVNV proceeded with litigation without substantiating ownership or verifying the accuracy of the debt.

Despite failing to respond, LVNV was granted a 60-day continuance by the Court to investigate and verify the debt. As of XX/XX/XXXX, LVNV has failed to conduct any investigation or provide proper validation as required by law. Instead, LVNV has wrongfully shifted the burden, falsely claiming that I must prove the debt is not mine, rather than LVNV proving the debt is valid and enforceable. This is a direct violation of both federal and Texas law, as the burden of proof in debt collection cases rests entirely on LVNV.

Furthermore, under Texas Finance Code 392.202, a debt collector must conduct a reasonable investigation into a disputed debt and provide written verification within 30 days of a consumers dispute. LVNV has not only failed to comply with federal validation requirements, but they have also violated Texas state law by neglecting to conduct any reasonable investigation or provide verification.

Since LVNV has failed to validate the debt and instead sought to shift the burden onto myself without meeting the legal requirements under federal and state law, they have no right to pursue anything against me.

4. Failure to Investigate Publicly Filed UCC-1 Statement : LVNV failed to acknowledge or investigate the legally recorded UCC-1 Financing Statement, which publicly establishes that all past, present, and future debts, including any dispute related to the alleged obligation, are under the ownership of the Estate Trust and not myself . LVNV was formally notified through both public UCC-1 filings and court filings in direct response to their petition, clearly indicating that I do not own any assets or debts in a personal capacity and that any inquiry regarding the alleged obligation must be directed to the Estate Trust .

Upon receiving formal notice of the UCC-1 filing and my legal position, LVNV requested and was granted a 60-day continuance to investigate the matter. However, as of XX/XX/XXXX, LVNV has failed to conduct any investigation, failed to verify ownership, and failed to provide legally required documentation proving the debt is valid and enforceable. Instead, LVNV now claims that publicly filed UCC-1 notices and direct court filings are invalid arguments, despite being legally recognized under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) and Texas Finance Code 9.101 et seq.

LVNV refusal to acknowledge and investigate the properly recorded security interest of the Estate Trust demonstrates a willful failure to comply with both federal and state laws governing debt validation and consumer protections. Because LVNV failed to provide proof of ownership and ignored legal filings that place the alleged debt outside of my personal liability, they lack standing to pursue this.

5. Fraudulent Credit Reporting and Re-Aging of Debt : LVNV has engaged in fraudulent credit reporting practices by misrepresenting the age and status of the alleged debt, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. Specifically, LVNV re-aged the debt by reporting it as a current and active obligation in XXXX, despite the alleged account having been charged off on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Re-aging occurs when a debt collector or furnisher falsely resets the delinquency date on an account to make it appear more recent than it actually is. This practice is expressly prohibited under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ), which limits how long negative credit information can remain on a consumers credit report. Under federal law, a charged-off debt can not be reported as new or reset beyond the seven-year statutory reporting period, and its delinquency date can not be altered to extend its enforceability. 
By reporting the debt as a new and current obligation in XXXX, LVNV has : Falsely represented the age and enforceability of the debt. A violation of federal consumer protection laws that regulate the accuracy of credit reporting occurred causing financial harm to myself by damaging credit score and misleading creditors into believing the debt is recent and collectible.

Because LVNV has engaged in fraudulent credit reporting and improper re-aging of the alleged debt, this action constitutes unfair and deceptive debt collection practices in violation of both federal and state consumer protection laws. As such, this case must be dismissed with prejudice, and LVNV must be ordered to correct the false credit reporting entries immediately.

6. Failure to Abide by Mandatory Arbitration Clause : LVNV ignored the binding arbitration agreement in the original XXXXXXXX XXXX contract, which they allege originated in XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX contracts from XXXX included a mandatory arbitration clause, which remains valid even after the debt was sold. LVNV is bound by this arbitration clause because it is part of the contract they claim to enforce. If arbitration applies, the court lacks jurisdiction over this lawsuit, and the case must be dismissed in favor of arbitration. LVNV asserts that XXXXXXXX XXXX  agreements allow claims under {$25000.00} to be pursued in small claims court, but this assertion is false. XXXXXXXX XXXX  standard agreements from XXXX and XXXX mandate that " most disputes between you and XXXX will be subject to individual arbitration, '' with no exceptions for claims under {$25000.00}. 
Furthermore, LVNV has not provided the original agreement or any evidence supporting their claim. Without the original contract, LVNV can not substantiate their argument, and the presumption stands that all disputes are subject to arbitration. 

7. Incorrect Name on Alleged Debt : Plaintiff has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that I XXXX XXXX, is the individual associated with the alleged debt, as the documentation provided reflects a variation of Defendants legal name. Plaintiff has submitted two account statements bearing a name that does not match my name. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94 and Texas Finance Code 392.101, the burden of proof lies with LVNV to provide clear and convincing evidence of my liability for the alleged debt. The mere submission of statements from internal sources, does not satisfy the burden of debt ownership under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) or Texas Finance Code 392.202. These documents fail to establish a legally enforceable obligation between I and the original creditor, a complete and unbroken chain of assignment from XXXXXXXX XXXX  to LVNV Funding, LLC, and an authenticated record proving that I personally am liable for the alleged debt.

Furthermore, the account statements provided contain a variation of my legal name, which introduces additional doubt as to their validity. Internally generated documents do they meet the burden of proof required to enforce an alleged financial obligation. Because LVNV has failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of both federal and state law, this case must be dismissed with prejudice.

Lastly, LVNV misrepresentation of Defendants identity and the alleged obligation constitutes a deceptive collection practice in violation of the Texas Debt Collection Act ( Texas Finance Code 392.304 ), which prohibits misrepresenting the character, extent, or enforceability of a debt. LVNVs failure to establish proper ownership of the alleged obligation, coupled with their attempts to enforce an unverified debt against the wrong individual, renders their claim legally insufficient and unenforceable. I was also threatened with a notice from LVNV which entailed language that made it appear as though it was an active un aged debt and that failure to comply by paying or settling would result in credit damage.

8. UCC Applicability : LVNV argues that UCC laws do not apply, yet the debt arises from a consumer retail contract involving a security instrument, thereby falling under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Under UCC Article 9 ( Secured Transactions, UCC 9-102 ), a security interest arises when a creditor extends financing for the purchase of goods or services, securing repayment through the consumers contractual obligation. 
The alleged debt stems from a retail credit contract issued by XXXXXXXX XXXX which extended financing in a secured transaction, thereby making the agreement a security instrument governed by the UCC. UCC 9-109 ( a ) ( 1 ) applies to transactions creating security interests in personal property, including consumer credit accounts.

Assignment of Debt Must Follow UCC Article 3 & 9. UCC Article 3 ( Negotiable Instruments, UCC 3-203 ) requires a party enforcing a transferred financial obligation to establish an unbroken chain of title. UCC Article 9 ( Secured Transactions, UCC 9-406 and 9-607 ) mandates that a party claiming rights to an assigned debt must prove assignment and provide verification of ownership upon request. LVNV has failed to produce a valid assignment or bill of sale from XXXXXXXX XXXX to Resurgent Acquisitions , LLC, and the Transfer Agreement from Resurgent to LVNV lacks any authorization from XXXX XXXX. Without an enforceable chain of title, Plaintiff can not legally assert ownership over the debt.

Failure To Investigate the Publicly Filed UCC-1 Financing Statement. Defendant has publicly recorded a UCC-1 Financing Statement, which legally establishes that all past, present, and future debts, including any alleged obligation at issue, are secured under the Estate Trust , not myself personally. Under UCC 9-322, a properly filed UCC-1 statement establishes priority of interest, meaning Plaintiff was required to direct any claim to the secured party ( the Estate Trust ), not Defendant individually. Plaintiff was formally notified of the UCC-1 filing through court records and requested a 60-day continuance to investigate but failed to do so.

9. LVNV has failed to notify me how they received alleged information/ I did not authorize anyone to sell my personal information to a collections company. LVNV has refuse to answer request.

10. Also ibn recorded communication, LVNV denies that this is a security instrument and fails to provide detailed account history for a debt they alleged was transferred to them. They gave informed me that they don't have to and regardless of how quite unquote " funky '' the bill of sale or transfer agreement look, the representative states this is industry standard and " how we do things. '' They stated they did not have to respond to any request for validation or verification and its been since XX/XX/XXXX the initial request was made which fails requirements for responding to consumer disputes. 

XXXX. I own no assets. LVNV was formally made aware of this and that ESTATE TRUST owns all assets past, precent and or future. LVNV in recorded communication stated that this was an artificial trust. The trust is filed on public record. When asked did they confirm and investigate, they stated they did not.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation