Consumer complaint received 2025-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Complainant bring this complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a Class Action complaint that is a continuous violation by the XXXX XXXX XXXX, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, its Managing Partner, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX that is a debt collection agency for the collusion, willful violation of Federal Law, State Law, statutes that were enacted by Congress and regulations.

There is competent evidence, substantial evidence, preponderance of evidence and reliable evidence to support complainant factual allegations of gross conduct, unlawful misconduct and abusive litigation that violated the CFPB and FDCP and putting their consumer collection skills to the test to collect the alleged XX/XX/XXXX debt through litigations that has been continuously and systematically causing Plaintiff to suffer harm, injuries, damages, monetary damages, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, irreparable harm, mental pain and suffering. 

Requesting the CFPB to apply the Equitable tolling doctrine for the fraudulent concealment of material facts. 

Other Law Firms and the Solicitations by other companies via mail and phone calls made Complainant aware of the XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure sale that is to be conducted on the Courthouse steps to the highest bidder. Complainant continue to get harassed by the Other Law Firms and the Solicitations by other companies and he suffered mental anguish and severe emotional distress. 

McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, is a debt collection agency XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a debt collection agency XXXX XXXX XXXX that both are aiding and abetting fraud, fraud concealment of material facts and committed fraudulent acts with their client, " XXXX '' that were willful. 

McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX had a legal duty to investigate the alleged default for XX/XX/XXXX and breached their legal duty before acting that caused complainant harm and injuries that were foreseen, collusion, and committed civil conspiracy. 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a debt collection agency that threaten to take legal action that could not be legally taking in XXXX and proceed with foreclosure that was Attempted Wrongful Foreclosure. 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a debt collection agency and stated, " The law does not require this firm to wait until the end of the thirty-day period before taking action to collect the Debt ''. See debt collection letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a debt collection agency, did not serve Complainant with certified mail in accordance with Federal Law, State Law, statutes that were enacted by Congress, regulations and have a sale date for my property scheduled for, XX/XX/XXXX that is from the same unlawful misconduct of the XXXX attempted wrongful foreclosure. 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX client is XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX '' in the state of XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX client, " XXXX '' declared default against Complainant in XX/XX/XXXX when he was not in default. " XXXX '' hired the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX that is a debt collection agencyXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX that is a debt collection agency worked on the foreclosure and received competent evidence, substantial evidence, preponderance of evidence and reliable evidence that Complainant had not defaulted on the loan in XX/XX/XXXX as alleged by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX client " XXXX ''. 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX violated Complainant Bankruptcy Case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, Case XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) filed XX/XX/XXXX, pages XXXX the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Notice of Appearance by Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX do not have any personal knowledge surrounding the Attempted Wrongful Foreclosure and proceeded with legal action that could not be legally taken. 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was made aware that their client, " XXXX '' and Complainant was involved in loss mitigation and settlement negotiation that is on-going. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was made aware that their client, " XXXX '' discuss settlement with Complainant, had a meeting of the minds, agreed to settle, settlement negotiations occurred, and settlement negotiations are on-going to settle the actual dispute. 

At all-time relevant, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX receiving proof of payment from Complainant, and " XXXX '' Business records filed in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Division XXXX XXXX XXXX and willfully violated Federal Law, State Law, Statutes that were enacted by Congress and Regulations XXXX 

At all-time relevant, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sent by regular mail collection letters dated XX/XX/XXXX attempting to collect an amount that was disputed within 30 days, an amount that is in dispute, an amount that is factual in correct, attorney fees, fees, escrow fees, accrued interest fees, advanced escrow funds fees, recording fees, corporate advances fees, Interest, fees, costs, and attorneys fees continue to accrue. 

At all-time relevant, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX knowledge that Complainant and their client, " XXXX " entered into an XXXX XXXX to settle the actual dispute. However, the co-conspiracies McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and Managing Partner, vigorously litigated the prior case was stubbornly litigious to put their consumer collection skills to the test as advertised on the company website. 

At all-time relevant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX advertised the property for sale several times in the newspaper and made false statements, stating, " The debt secured by said Deed to secure debt has been and hereby declared due because of, among other possible events of default, failure to pay the indebtedness as and when due and in the manner provided in the note and deed to secure debt ''. 

At all-time relevant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did not serve Complainant actual notice of intent to collect attorney 's fees as advertised in the newspaper. 

The CFPB can apply the plain language in the statutes and binding case law that were willfully violated by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC, and The XXXX XXXX XXXX McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC Managing Partner. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( b ) ; XXXX XXXX. GA XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from adopting abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices, 1692-1692p. 
4. Complainant suffered harassment and abuse.

5. Was threaten with illegal actions, 6. falsely threaten with actions that was not indented to be taken 7. All debt collections were asked to cease and desist all communication with me about the debt that competent evidence revealed Complainant did not default as alleged in XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( " FDCPA '' ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 9. Consumer Financial Protection Act ( " CFPA '' ), 12 U.S.C. 5536.

10. The FDCPA " applies to attorneys who " regularly " engage in consumer-debt-collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX - Dist. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Supreme Court XXXX XXXX The plain language in the regulations and statutes are clear and unambiguous and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the United States Supreme Court have addressed the plain meaning of a word in the regulatory language and statute language, stating it means what it means. 

If the CFPB review of the regulatory language and statute language unambiguously answers the question at issue, that is the end of the matter. In reading a regulation 's text, complainant is requesting the CFPB to look at the common usage or ordinary meaning '' of the actual language used when reaching a decision. 

Complainant is requesting the CFPB to interpret " regulations the same way it interprets statutes ; it starts with the textand, if CFPB finds the text clear, it ends there as well. ''

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation