Consumer complaint received 2019-03-30 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX is a debt collector who obtained an account I did not open, addressed to an address in another city I have never lived in or used, received a default Judgment against me and then a garnishment, which was sent to my bank requesting funds and all my private information so they can locate other accounts of mine. They did this in violation of the FCRA, without serving me or making a diligent effort to locate me. I did not find out about any of this until I received a notice of garnishment from my bank XXXX XXXX in late XXXX. 
FACT : As of XXXX, Michigan had the 4th highest ID Theft complaints : 4. Michigan > Complaints per 100,000 population : 676.7 > Total complaints : 66,964 ( 6th most ) > Identity theft complaints per 100,000 : 97.1 ( tied for 4th most ) >XX/XX/XXXX home value change : -24.4 % ( 5th worst ) Unlike many other states with high incidents of fraud, Michigan residents had less debt than most Americans. For example, the average auto loan debt in Michigan was just {$13000.00} as of XXXX of this year, the lowest in the nation. While residents may not have as much to lose as those in other states, they were among the hardest hit by the financial crisis and are likely still vulnerable to fraud. Home values fell by 24.4 % between XXXX and XXXX, more than double the nationwide decline. The states 8.3 % unemployment rate last year was also one of the worst in the nation Source : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I contacted a local news station who had one of their investigative reporters contact me. After providing documents and speaking with the investigative reporter I found out the following disturbing information : The Investigative reporter told me shady debt collection practices have become their 2nd highest complaints next to Robo-Calls Complaints concerning unlawful or deceitful Debt collectors had increased 60 % in XXXX with most of those being consumers not finding out about a debt until after having their accounts garnished. 
The investigative reporters theory ; Debt Collectors have a scheme to give the appearance they have made a diligent effort to serve individuals, the Courts always take the DEBT COLLECTORS at their word and even lower the standards of proof for these Debt Collectors.

Many of these collection agencies have either a personal relationship with Judges or donate heavily to the Judges that hear their cases.

The system is set-up to encourage bad behavior by Debt Collectors ; By obtaining a default Judgment whether its based on untruthful affidavits, deficient service, or lack of jurisdiction, The Burden of Proof flips from the Debt Collector to the Defendant. 
Prior to a default Judgment a Defendant just needs to question the accounting of the debt. 

However, after the improper Default Judgment is obtained the Defendant now must prove both : a. ) Good Cause to set aside the Default and b ) a meritorious defense. Moreso, the standards of Defendants meritorious defense substantially increase. Meaning, even after the defendant provides what should be a valid meritorious defense the Courts continue to rule in favor of the Debt Collector largely due to the relationships built between the Courts and the Debt Collectors.

Again, the Debt Collectors rarely ever make a diligent effort to give  the consumer proper notice of a complaint for a debt. Its so much easier to obtain a judgment when the other side does not have the ability to defend him/herself. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX effort is primarily crossing the Ts and Dotting their is to give the appearance of a diligent effort and mislead to Courts into granting default Judgments, My case with XXXX XXXX XXXX is a perfect example how reckless they are and how simple it is to steal money from anyone at anytime in a public forum. 

**Once I forwarded the default judgment to the reporter it was implied that someone at XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Judge who was assigned to the case, have a close relationship. The reporter told me I should request the Judge to recuse himself. 

Based on these standards I can file a Civil lawsuit against any individual e.g. XXXX for {$15000.00}. Use an address XXXX never lived at in another City or County, hire a process server who will provide an affidavit XXXX is evading service and obtain a default Judgment against XXXX, and then garnish his bank account ( s ). By the time XXXX knows what happened I am walking off with his {$15000.00}. This is unconscionable!

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation