Consumer complaint received 2026-05-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Scott Kroner PLC
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
FDCPA Violation Deceptive Collection Practices and Fraudulent Documentation I am filing this complaint to formally report that Scott | Kroner, PLC, and attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically 15 U.S. Code 1692e, which bans the use of false or misleading representations. The Respondent engaged in unauthorized collection communication on XX/XX/year>, by providing a judgment lien payoff amount. In the Respondent response as of XXXX he now states in their official " Grounds of Defense '' that this very same lien payoff he submitted is actually unenforceable. Then he tries to say but the one he docketed is still enforceable. Heres why it is not : The creditors attempt to enforce these liens is legally invalid due to improper jurisdiction and procedure. Under Va. Code 16.1-77, a General District Court ( GDC ) has jurisdiction strictly limited to its territorial boundaries and lacks the authority of a Circuit Court. A GDC judgment does not automatically attach to real property ; the creditor must obtain a certified abstract from the GDC and docket it in the Circuit Court in the same geographic area then get a circuit court abstract form cc-1464 take that form and docket it where the property exists. Currently he has docketed a district court XXXX ( see bottom left ) of abstract in a foreign circuit which is clear evidence no upgrade occurred. By failing to perform this intra-jurisdictional upgrade, the creditor never created a valid lien. And Docketing these as ghost liens in other counties while the underlying judgment ( XXXX ) has expired under Va. Code 16.1-94 is improper and predatory. The creditor misapplies Va. Code 8.01-251, believing he can docket an abstract in any circuit court without an upgradebut that violates 16.1-77. He also mistakenly thinks the filing date of these ghost liens starts the 20-year lien period , when in fact the date on the XXXX controls the 10-year timeline ; an expired or procedurally dead judgment renders collection efforts void. Finally, all of these abstracts have the same case number across different jurisdictionsthis means they are one and the same. Scott Kroner filing GDC actions as if they were Circuit Court or foreign judgmentsviolates fundamental procedural law, because a lien can not exist without a valid, enforceable underlying judgment. He is violating : Based on the conduct you described, the creditor likely violated several provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), primarily 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) : False Representation of the Legal Status of a Debt This section prohibits a debt collector from making any false representation of " the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. '' The debt collector is trying to enforce a lien based on a General District Court judgment that was never properly upgraded to a Circuit Court lien. This makes the purported lien legally invalid. FDCPA Application : By attempting to collect on a lien he never lawfully created, the creditor is falsely representing the " legal status '' of the debt and the existence of a valid collection mechanism. This is a direct violation of 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ). 1692e ( 5 ) : Threatening Action That Can not Legally Be Taken This section forbids a debt collector from making " [ t ] he threat to take any action that can not legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. '' The debt collector is docketing " ghost liens '' in counties with no legal authority, using an expired judgment, and claiming enforceability across different jurisdictions with a single case number. FDCPA Application : All of the creditor 's actions to enforce an invalid lien constitute a series of threats to take legal action ( i.e., enforcing a lien, seizing property ) that can not legally be taken. This violates 1692e ( 5 ). 1692e ( 10 ) : Use of Deceptive : prohibits " [ t ] he use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. '' The debt collector is misapplying Virginia law, docketing " ghost liens, '' and claiming the filing date of a ghost lien starts his 20-year lien period , ignoring the true timeline under your judgment. FDCPA Application : The creditor 's creation of " ghost liens '' and misrepresentations of the law are classic examples of using " deceptive means '' to create a false sense of urgency or legal jeopardy, violating 1692e ( 10 ). 1692f : Unfair or Unconscionable Means The debt collector is creating " ghost liens '' without legal authority, using an expired judgment, and misusing legal procedures to create a cloud on your property title. FDCPA Application : Docketing " ghost liens '' against your property based on a judgment that is " procedurally dead '' is a classic example of an " unfair '' and abusive collection practice. The conduct described violates the spirit and letter of this section. FINALLY, the scott kroner signed by XXXX XXXX submitted a manufactured, fraudulent documentlabeled as " Exhibit C '' directly to the CFPB. This document was submitted as part of the Respondent 's " Grounds of Defense '' in CFPB Complaint Number XXXX ( filed XX/XX/year> ). This document is a fabricated " Borrower Authorization '' purportedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Evidence of FDCPA Violations and Fraudulent Submission The Respondent has used deceptive, conflicting, and fraudulent means to collect a debt, violating multiple sections of the FDCPA : * Collection of Unenforceable Debt : On XX/XX/year>, the Respondent communicated without authorization to provide a judgment lien payoff demand. However, in their subsequent Grounds of Defense, the Respondent explicitly admitted that this lien is unenforceable. Demanding payment on an unenforceable lien violates 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) regarding the true legal status of a debt. * Submission of Fabricated Records : The Respondent presented a fraudulent document ( " Exhibit C '' ) to the Bureau as an authentic record. This violates 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 10 ), which strictly forbids using false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information. A direct factual comparison confirms the document is manufactured : * Missing Property Identification : Unlike the authentic XXXX XXXX authorization, the version submitted by the Respondent leaves the " Address of the property '' section entirely blank. * Unauthorized Branding : The submitted document includes a corporate logo not found on the authentic XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX authorization form. * Omission of Mandatory Warnings : The authentic form contains a critical red-text warning : " PLEASE DO NOT SIGN VIA ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE. '' This mandatory instruction was deliberately omitted from the Respondents version. * Falsified Scope : The Respondents document lacks the specific, property-bound authorization language required by XXXX XXXX XXXX showing an intent to misrepresent my legal consent. XXXX. Impact and Requested Resolution By demanding payment on an unenforceable lien and submitting fabricated evidence to a federal agency, the Respondent has engaged in severe and deceptive collection practices. This action undermines the integrity of the Bureaus complaint process. I request that the CFPB formally investigate these actions as direct violations of the FDCPA. I ask that the Bureau take appropriate enforcement action against Scott | Kroner , PLC, and XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Supporting Documents Attached see page 4 last paragraph of Scott Kroner response in his grounds of defense complaint dated XXXX and answered XXXX with his illogical and misplaced reasoning that violate the fdcpa and committed fraud on the court. I have attached the following for your immediate review : * XXXX : The fraudulent document ( " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted by the Respondent to the Bureau in the referenced complaint. * XXXX : The authentic XXXX XXXX authorization form for comparison. * [ XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX ] : The XX/XX/year> payoff communication from the Respondent.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation