Consumer complaint received 2026-05-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Told you not to respond to a lawsuit they filed against you
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
The category selected is the closest available option. My complaint is not that XXXX XXXX literally told me not to respond. My complaint is that after I did respond and the Court accepted my Answer, XXXX XXXX attempted to file and mailed me a sworn Affidavit of Default falsely stating that no Answer or responsive pleading had been filed or served. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX represents Citibank , N.A . in a pending debt-collection lawsuit in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Case No. XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, I filed my Answer with XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Court confirmed receipt that same morning and scheduled the case for hearing. On XX/XX/year>, shortly before the hearing was set to begin, the hearing was rescheduled at Plaintiffs request because Plaintiffs counsel had a scheduling conflict. I was prepared to attend and did not request the rescheduling. On XX/XX/year>, Plaintiffs attorney, XXXX XXXX XXXX, signed and notarized an Affidavit of Default and Non-Military Status. The affidavit states, under oath, that more than thirty days had elapsed since service and that no answer or other responsive pleading has been filed or served by the Defendant. That statement was false. My Answer had already been filed, accepted by the XXXX, and the case had already been scheduled for hearing. I received the Affidavit of Default by mail on XX/XX/year>. On XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed by email : The affidavit of default was not accepted because this case is not in default. The court received the answer and it has been scheduled for a hearing XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX. The concern is not only that the affidavit was wrong. The concern is that it was signed, notarized, attempted to be filed with the Court, and mailed to me after the case had already been accepted as answered, scheduled for hearing, and rescheduled at Plaintiffs request. If XXXX XXXX or Citibank contends this was a mistake, I ask them to explain how it happened after the Court had already accepted my Answer and scheduled the case for hearing. If they contend the attorney did not know the case was answered, I ask them to explain how Plaintiffs counsel requested rescheduling of a hearing scheduled after my Answer was accepted. If they contend the affidavit was prepared by staff or generated automatically, I ask them to explain why it was signed and notarized without confirming the Court record. At minimum, the affidavit appears to have been prepared, signed, notarized, attempted to be filed, and mailed without a reasonable review of the Court record. If Plaintiffs counsel knew the case was not in default, then the affidavit was materially false. This conduct was unfair and misleading. It created the impression that I had failed to defend the lawsuit and that Plaintiff was entitled to default-related relief, when the Court record showed otherwise. I am not filing this complaint to open settlement discussions, negotiate a payment plan, or invite direct collection communication. I am filing it to create a formal record of this conduct while the court case remains pending and to require a formal response through the complaint process. I am also filing a related complaint with the South Carolina XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. I am noting that here so Citibank and XXXX XXXX are aware that the CFPB and XXXX complaints are separate and require separate responses.

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