Consumer complaint received 2025-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: AL

Complaint narrative:
I received communication ( XXXX ) from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claiming I owe a debt to Bank of America. I dispute this debt in its entirety because I paid the account in full to Bank of America using a negotiable instrument, as defined under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) 3-104, as adopted in Alabama ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), prior to any purported assignment to XXXX XXXX XXXX  . Courts have upheld that payment via a negotiable instrument discharges the underlying obligation when accepted by the creditor. For example, in Cach , LLC v. Askew, 358 S.W.3d 676 ( Tex. 2012 ), the court recognized that a negotiable instrument, such as a check, constitutes valid payment when tendered and accepted, discharging the debt unless the creditor proves non-payment or dishonor. Similarly, in Bank of America v. Pendergrass, 206 So. 3d 1397 ( Ala. Civ . App. 2016 ), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that a negotiable instrument tendered in payment shifts the burden to the creditor to prove non-payment or invalidity. XXXX XXXX XXXX has provided no evidence of dishonor or non-acceptance of my payment, as required under UCC 3-501 ( Ala. Code 7-3-501 ), yet continues to pursue collection. 
Additionally, I have secured my interests in all my property, including any related to this alleged debt, through a properly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement, pursuant to Ala. Code 7-9A-501 et seq., establishing my priority as a secured party over any unperfected claims by Lloyd & McDaniel. As a third-party debt collector, they have no security interest in this debt under UCC Article 9 ( Ala. Code 7-9A-203, 7-9A-108, 7-9A-310 ), as no authenticated security agreement exists between us, and my UCC-1 filing takes precedence over their unperfected claim. Their attempt to collect on a paid debt, in defiance of my secured status, is baseless and deceptive. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX actions violate multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including : 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) : Falsely representing the legal status or amount of the debt by claiming I owe a debt that was paid in full.

15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 10 ) : Using deceptive means to collect by pursuing a debt without evidence of its validity or my liability to them.

15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) : Failing to cease collection activities after my dispute and request for validation, as I have formally requested validation in writing ( copy of letter dated [ insert date of your letter to XXXX XXXX XXXX ] enclosed ). 

Courts have found similar actions by debt collectors to constitute fraud or deception under the FDCPA. For example, in Bouye v. Bruce, 61 F.4th 485 ( 6th Cir. 2023 ), the court held that a debt collectors misrepresentation of debt ownership in attempting to collect an invalidly assigned debt violated the FDCPA. In Brown v. Transworld Sys. , Inc., 73 F.4th 1030 ( 9th Cir. 2023 ), deceptive attempts to collect on discharged debts through false representations of ownership were deemed unlawful. Additionally, in XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. ), false statements about the ability to sue on a discharged debt violated FDCPAs prohibitions on deceptive practices. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of a paid debt mirrors these deceptive practices, constituting potential fraud under Alabama common law ( Ala. Code 6-5-260 ) and the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( Ala. Code 8-19-5 ).

Furthermore, their actions appear to discriminate against me in violation of the ECOA, 15 U.S.C. 1691, which prohibits discrimination in credit transactions, including debt collection, based on protected characteristics such as race, XXXX, religion, national origin, XXXX, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance, or exercising rights under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. By targeting me for collection on a satisfied debt without basis, their practices may disproportionately affect or target individuals in a discriminatory manner, leading to disparate impact or treatment, exposing them to liability for actual and punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. 1691e.

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution ( Article IV, Section 1 ), as implemented by 28 U.S.C. 1738, XXXX XXXX XXXX is required to recognize the payment in full to Bank of America via a negotiable instrument and my UCC-1 filing, which are public acts and records under applicable state law. Their failure to honor these records across state lines, including in Kentucky where they operate, violates this constitutional mandate, as upheld in Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. 481 ( 1813 ), and may constitute fraud or deception. 
Impact of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX actions have caused me significant distress, including harassment through repeated collection attempts, potential damage to my credit report, and the burden of defending against a baseless claim. Their refusal to validate the debt or acknowledge my payment and secured status undermines my financial security and legal rights.

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