Consumer complaint received 2024-01-02 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
Company: Suttell, Hammer & White, P.S
State: AK

Complaint narrative:
I made several attempts to contact Suttell & Hammer and finally reached them by phone on XXXX and was offered a settlement of the credit card debt on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in the amount of {$16000.00} in 24 payments in the amount of {$680.00}. I accepted the settlement offer and payment plan and amount that day over the phone and also made a partial payment of {$300.00} to initialize this agreement between us and then paid the other part of the first payment of XXXX on XXXX. 3 days later, XXXX, Suttell & Hammer sent a letter of confirmation of the settlement amount and payment plan and amount per month, except that they considered the partial payment as the first payment and that made the 24th payment double, in the amount of {$1300.00}. Even after I complained to them that we agreed that the first payment was to be made in 2 payments within 2 weeks, I was never told this was considered to be 2 payments resulting in a huge last double payment. Regardless, I still continued to make the payments. Since XXXX, I have paid {$4800.00} and currently owe approximately {$11000.00}. There was no mention of Suttell & Hammer requiring anything else in their offer and payment plan letter dated XXXX. XXXX days later, XXXX, Suttell & Hammer sent me a stipulated judgment to sign. So far I have refused to sign the stipulation because it allowed Suttell & Hammer far too much over reach beyond a simple 24 month payment plan. I called Suttell & Hammer several times and left messages before the hearing on XXXX, and finally spoke with XXXX in the accounting department that same XXXX. XXXX stated that this conversation is recorded etc., and that as long as I am making payments as agreed, no further legal action will be taken. If that is true, and since our conversations were stated as recorded by Suttell & Hammer, I have no reason to believe otherwise. The question is, if Suttell & Hammer stated that as long as I am making payments there will be no further legal action, then why does Suttell & Hammer need a stipulation signed by me and not drop the lawsuit? To make matters worse, Suttell & Hammer made a mistake on their stipulation document, the pages are not numbered sequentially and I could not get the document notarized. I went to a hearing on XXXX, same day I was told by XXXX at Suttell & Hammer that no further legal action was needed as long as I was current on payments, and asked the court to have Suttell & Hammer fix the page number error so I could sign the stipulation and get it notarized. I also explained to the court that Suttell & Hammer 's office told me earlier in that day that no further legal action was required as long as I am current on payments. All along, I have filed motions asking the court to dismiss Suttell & Hammer 's lawsuit actions, but to no avail because there is no reason to have a stipulation judgment when both parties already have reached a settlement and I am current on all payments including an extra payment. 
I do not believe I should have to sign a stipulation judgment unless I have defaulted on Suttell & Hammer 's verbal and written settlement and payment plan offer they sent me on XXXX. I have all the documents, phone records, notes, etc. and simply want Suttell & Hammer to drop the lawsuit filed against me as I believe a stipulation is not necessary and is definitely now a form of harassment due to the number of hearings I have gone to so far and now another hearing on XXXX. And the difference between what their office employees are stating to me, that no further legal action is required as long as I am current on payments, and then having Suttell & Hammer still harassing me to sign a stipulation, but illegally changing the stipulation document that was already filed and mailed to me for a signature with a simple page error by adding more information, restrictions and constraints into a whole new stipulation document that is now completely different. Now if signed, it allows Suttell & Hammer to garnish anything they want etc., whereas before the stipulation restricted Suttell & Hammer. 

I need help. I am certain the judge does not want to find out that Suttell & Hammer has completely changed the stipulation, instead of just fixing the page number error on the original stipulation document. This is outrageous, unjust and a complete waste of the Court 's time.

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