Consumer complaint received 2025-04-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I am the sole person writing and submitting this complaint against XXXX XXXX  and their debt collection law firm, Weltman , Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA specifically attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) in connection with a debt collection lawsuit filed against me in the XXXX District Court XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) knowingly made false and defamatory statements in court filings, including the claim that I had moved three times in three years to avoid collection. This statement is completely false. Between XXXX and XXXX, I changed addresses only twice. At no point during that time did I have any active collections, nor was there any attempt on my part to avoid creditors or legal obligations. The statement appears to have been made solely to mislead the court, justify substitute service, and falsely portray me as evasive. There is no factual basis for this accusation. 

More concerning is that the debt collector attempted to garnish multiple bank accounts that I do not and have not banked with. This suggests a reckless or possibly bad-faith use of the courts garnishment process without verifying whether the accounts were still active or even valid. This type of action causes unnecessary stress, damages my financial security, and amounts to harassment. 

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA and XXXX XXXX  currently hold a Writ of Garnishment against my XXXX tax returns. I was never properly served with notice of this garnishment. All documents regarding this alleged debt were mailed to an address I havent lived at since XX/XX/XXXX, despite the fact that I had already submitted court documents and served them directly to the law firm clearly stating my correct and current address. 

To make matters worse, they had already sent and received prior correspondence from me at my correct address ( where I have resided since XXXX ) before attempting garnishment. This confirms that they had full knowledge of where I lived but chose to misrepresent facts to the court in order to gain leverage through improper channels. 

These actions constitute serious violations of the FDCPA, including but not limited to : VIOLATION # 1 : 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 10 ) USE OF FALSE OR DECEPTIVE MEANS TO COLLECT A DEBT - False and defamatory claim that I moved 3 times in 3 years. 

VIOLATION # 2 : 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) MISREPRESENTATION OF THE LEGAL STATUS OR CHARACTER OF A DEBT - Blatant lie made to justify improper substitute service and manipulate court perception, constituting a deceptive means of pursuing collection. 

VIOLATION # 3 : 15 U.S. Code 1692f USE OF UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE MEANS TO COLLECT A DEBT - Submitted garnishment requests to financial institutions where I have never held active accounts. 

VIOLATION # 4 : 1692d CONDUCT INTENDED TO HARASS, OPPRESS, OR ABUSE - Deliberately trying to damage my character and reputation causing stress and inconvenience by making false and misleading statements. 

VIOLATION # 5 : 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 5 ) THREATENING OR TAKING ACTION THAT CAN NOT LEGALLY BE TAKEN - Knowingly serving Writ of Garnishment documents to an outdated address after documentation and communication was sent and received by both parties to my correct address. 

VIOLATION # 6 : 1692f ( 1 ) ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT AMOUNTS NOT PERMITTED BY LAW - The lack of notice deprived me of due process and may have rendered the garnishment unlawful. 

VIOLATION # 7 : 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 10 ) CONTINUED DECEPTIVE COMMUNICATION - Even after I filed court documents and directly notified the attorney of my current address ( which Ive maintained since XXXX ), the debt collector continued to send critical court documents, including garnishment-related materials, to my old address. This resulted in delayed notice, potential default rulings, and was clearly avoidable given the debt collectors actual knowledge of my location.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation