Consumer complaint received 2025-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC
State: AL

Complaint narrative:
Dear Sir or Madam : I am filing this formal complaint against Lloyd & McDaniel , PLC, a debt collection agency located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, KY XXXX, for engaging in fraudulent and deceptive practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq., and other applicable federal and Alabama laws. Specifically, Lloyd & McDaniel is attempting to collect an alleged debt from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX that I paid in full using a negotiable instrument, and their actions constitute harassment, deception, and potential fraud. 
Details of the Complaint I received communication ( s ) from Lloyd & McDaniel , PLC claiming I owe a debt to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. I dispute this debt in its entirety because I paid the account in full to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX using a negotiable instrument, as defined under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) 3-104, as adopted in Alabama ( Ala. Code 7-3-104 ), prior to any purported assignment to Lloyd & McDaniel . Courts have upheld that payment via a negotiable instrument discharges the underlying obligation when accepted by the creditor. For example, in XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized that a negotiable instrument, such as a check, constitutes valid payment when tendered and accepted, discharging the debt unless the creditor proves non-payment or dishonor. Similarly, in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that a negotiable instrument tendered in payment shifts the burden to the creditor to prove non-payment or invalidity. Lloyd & XXXX has provided no evidence of dishonor or non-acceptance of my payment, as required under UCC 3-501 ( Ala. Code 7-3-501 ), yet continues to pursue collection. 
Additionally, I have secured my interests in all my property, including any related to this alleged debt, through a properly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement, pursuant to Ala. Code 7-9A-501 et seq., establishing my priority as a secured party over any unperfected claims by Lloyd & McDaniel. As a third-party debt collector, they have no security interest in this debt under UCC Article 9 ( Ala. Code 7-9A-203, 7-9A-108, 7-9A-310 ), as no authenticated security agreement exists between us, and my UCC-1 filing takes precedence over their unperfected claim. Their attempt to collect on a paid debt, in defiance of my secured status, is baseless and deceptive. 
Lloyd & McDaniels actions violate multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including : 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) : Falsely representing the legal status or amount of the debt by claiming I owe a debt that was paid in full. 
15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 10 ) : Using deceptive means to collect by pursuing a debt without evidence of its validity or my liability to them. 
15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) : Failing to cease collection activities after my dispute and request for validation, as I have formally requested validation in writing on XXXX. 

Courts have found similar actions by debt collectors to constitute fraud or deception under the FDCPA. For example, in XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court held that a debt collectors misrepresentation of debt ownership in attempting to collect an invalidly assigned debt violated the FDCPA. In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), deceptive attempts to collect on discharged debts through false representations of ownership were deemed unlawful. Additionally, in XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX  ), false statements about the ability to sue on a discharged debt violated FDCPAs prohibitions on deceptive practices. Lloyd & McDaniels pursuit of a paid debt mirrors these deceptive practices, constituting potential fraud under Alabama common law ( Ala. Code 6-5-260 ) and the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( Ala. Code 8-19-5 ). 
Furthermore, their actions appear to discriminate against me in violation of the ECOA, 15 U.S.C. 1691, which prohibits discrimination in credit transactions, including debt collection, based on protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, national origin, XXXX, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance, or exercising rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. By targeting me for collection on a satisfied debt without basis, their practices may disproportionately affect or target individuals in a discriminatory manner, leading to disparate impact or treatment, exposing them to liability for actual and punitive damages under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. 
Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution ( Article IV, Section 1 ), as implemented by 28 U.S.C. 1738, Lloyd & McDaniel is required to recognize the payment in full to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX via a negotiable instrument and my UCC-1 filing, which are public acts and records under applicable state law. Their failure to honor these records across state lines, including in Kentucky where they operate, violates this constitutional mandate, as upheld in XXXX v. XXXX, 11 U.S. 481 ( XXXX ), and may constitute fraud or deception. 
Impact of the Issue Lloyd & McDaniels actions have caused me significant distress, including harassment through repeated collection attempts, potential damage to my credit report, and the burden of defending against a baseless claim. Their refusal to validate the debt or acknowledge my payment and secured status undermines my financial security and legal rights.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation