Consumer complaint received 2026-03-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
As background, Resurgent likely is not legally supposed to be doing collections in Texas. I was unable to verify that Resurgent has a current XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX in Texas with their XXXX provider, XXXX XXXX. Resurgent refuses to provide that information. The number they provided to the Texas Secretary of State does not match the number on the letters sent to me as well as discrepancies in the address, so it's likely the XXXX XXXX is expired. If a XXXX XXXX address and phone number are incorrect on the XXXX website, technically the debt collector is unreachable. While this is state-specific, it shows Resurgents disregard for laws. For background, XXXX XXXX, my loan provider, did not provide to me a notice to cure a default before their securitization loan provider, XXXX, charged off the loan on XX/XX/XXXX. Texas law requires a notice to cure default. I disputed this with XXXX XXXX, who was simply looking to clear their books before their XXXX XXXX XXXX acquisition by XXXXXXXX XXXX due to wrap up Q2 of XXXX. XXXX, which wasn't XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX , supposedly was the entity that charged off the loan, not XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a scammy looking text from a Resurgent Capital. The text didn't show any information, and looked like a phishing attempt. I did make an account with Resurgent instead of clicking that shady text to see if XXXX XXXX had indeed tried to pawn off this loan on someone else since I told them I was aware of the acquisition and what they were trying to do. In fact, I had already filed a CFPB complaint against XXXX XXXX, and they admitted they provided no notice to cure since I had opted out their harassing phone calls. Opting out of phone calls does not mean they get to violate my rights and circumvent the law. My loan was targeted because of my hardship program during my unemployment, but I would have been more than willing to bring it current since I now have good employment. This was all to make way for the XXXXXXXX XXXX acquisition. Once I had my Resurgent account active, I noticed the account had multiple changes in ownership, which were never relayed to me. Resurgent even went back later and tampered with the original account information to make it look like XXXX XXXX had always been owner. I signed my contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX only, not XXXX XXXX, who is only the Servicer. Resurgent shows on the account that the loan was originally with XXXX XXXX XXXX, was charged off by XXXX ( who is not a lender ), and then sold by XXXX XXXX to Resurgent ( LVNV Funding ) on XX/XX/XXXX. When I asked for the full chain of custody showing the sale from XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX and from XXXX to XXXX XXXX, and the master purchase agreement with XXXX ( who is not a licensed lender in Texas and was explained to Resurgent multiple times ), Resurgent refused to provide it. I also disputed the amount since the principal amount never reduced after XX/XX/XXXX with payments made all through XXXX. This should have been a red flag to Resurgent, but I doubt anyone there is paying attention to details like that. Resurgent only wants to provide boilerplate debt verification with no real thought or investigation behind it. I have made multiple online disputes, starting from when I was able to access my online account. Resurgent clearly is uncomfortable with my questions since these XXXX XXXX loans are a large part of their portfolio, so in their last email to me they said they would no longer communicate online and all communication had to be through the U.S. mail. Their last letter claims they didn't have enough information to verify any of the items I disputed. I provided plenty of information, so this is a evasion tactic. I have sent multiple follow-ups online to the XX/XX/XXXX letter that were all ignored. Resurgent needs to return this file to XXXX XXXX or XXXX ( it's unclear who actually sold this and charged it off ). Since these companies violated my rights, never sent me a letter to cure default, and XXXX XXXX just wanted to clean up accounts with hardship payments before their acquisition by XXXXXXXX XXXX, this account should have never been sold. Resurgent should have never bothered to collect on a such a problematic file if they couldn't quickly produce the actual chain of custody since they only have numbers on a spreadsheet, not forward flow agreements or bills of sale. It might even be possible Resurgent shouldn't even be collecting in Texas due to the fact their XXXX XXXX could not be verified as active. Resurgent needs to do a better job of actually responding to requests in the future instead of stonewalling. If they are going to have an online dispute process and someone asks an uncomfortable question about the very file they are trying to collect money on, then suddenly they only want to communicate through the U.S. mail, what good is having anything online?

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation