Consumer complaint received 2025-10-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: AR

Complaint narrative:
>Summary : >Resurgent ( for LVNV ) is furnishing and repeatedly verifying a collection tradeline for a debt already invalidated by court order. During litigation, they used mass-signed affidavits ( documented in my Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Affidavit, which identified 108 affidavits signed on the same day as mine ), continued collection activity while the case was pending, and deleted their own tradeline during litigation. Despite multiple disputes and a court order, XXXX  and XXXX  still show the item as verified. This pattern reflects unreasonable verification and inaccurate reporting. This includes significant amounts of FDCPA and FCRA violations.

>Detailed Narrative : >Court Outcome : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Case No. XXXX. The Complaint was filed XX/XX/year>. On XX/XX/year>, the Court entered Summary Judgment in my favor, invalidating the alleged LVNV debt.

>Post-Judgment Reporting & Disputes : After judgment, the LVNV/Resurgent tradeline remained on my XXXX  and XXXX  report and was verified multiple times ( around XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year> ). No original-creditor ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) tradeline exists on any report. Even when the court order was attached to disputes.

>Mass-Signed Affidavits : Nearly all affidavits used in lawsuits against consumers in the state of Arkansas, as well as other states like South Carolina , Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and many other states, are all produced by LVNV 's Servicer " Resurgent Capital Services '' another subsidary of " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' . Many of these are produced on Mass-signed dates, to include, but are not limited toJan XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX  ) with affiants and notaries occasionally swapping roles the same day. On my " Motion to Strike Plaintiff 's Affidavit '', I provided a list of 108 affidavits across multiple Arkansas Jurisdictions that were all signed by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>. This is not an isolated event ; I am currently building a spreadsheet on these mass filing dates. This was also referenced multiple times on my own docket, with exhibits in the following filings : " DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PATTERNED BOILERPLATE AFFIDAVIT PRACTICES EMPLOYED BY PLANTIFFS AGENTS '' filed XX/XX/year> ; " FIFTEEN DAY SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE TO DEFENDANT 'S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE '' filed XX/XX/year> ; " DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS AFFIDAVIT '' Filed XX/XX/year> and ; " MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT '' filed XX/XX/year>. This robo-signing activity has continued well after my Motion for Judicial Notice and well before, including the continuance of Notary/affiant swapping on the same day wile signing hundreds of " affidavits of knowledge '' a day. This can be easily found by following these steps : ^Step 1 : Open the official Arkansas Judiciary , XXXX XXXX XXXX. ^Step 2 : go to the case search and enter " XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the senior attorney at XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX over Arkansas, Ark-bar License # XXXX ) as the first/last name, and LVNV as the organization . ^Step 3 : On the case filing date, change the date to XX/XX/year>, and click the 3 little bars to the right and change it to " is after '', this should show every case filed in the state of Arkansas under just one of their many councel, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. click to the right of " case filing date '' do sort them in the order they were filed. ^Step 4 : starting with Case number XXXX, open it and review the complaint, you'll see that the affidavit was signed by XXXX XXXX as the Affiant, and XXXX XXXX as the notary on XX/XX/year>, both are employees of Resurgent Capital Services . If you continue to look at each case, XXXX and XXXX are still both signing the affidavits on XX/XX/XXXX, but they are swapping roles, this goes on for over 80 cases, potentially more. This example is just with one mass signing date I easily found while preparing this complaint, this was also using one of MANY firms as the example.

>Collection During Litigation : While the case was pending, Resurgent sent four collection letters that all arrived the same day an aggressive and coercive tactic that violated basic standards and caused additional harm. This was filed with the court as a notice, with Exhibits labeled " NOTICE OF COLLECTION ACTIVITY DURING PENDING LITIGATION '' on XX/XX/year> >Deletion During Litigation : The LVNV tradeline was deleted from XXXX  after a dispute and then re-appeared on XXXX  and XXXX  with conflicting data. Exhibits can be found on my " NOTICE OF CREDIT REPORTING DELETION AND ALTERATION DURING PENDING LITIGATION '' filed XX/XX/year>. 

>Counsel Conduct : LVNV 's Counsel, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. and its attorneys used discovery and filings in ways that undermined fairness and candor. They served 133 discovery requests on a {$970.00} claimmany coercive, sarcastic, or demanding legal conclusions ( That you have no defenses, That you used AI to write your filings, " That Plaintiff has not violated any State or Federal laws '' ). These discovery examples can be easily found in the list of 47 RFA 's ( Requests for Admissions ) under the plaintiffs own filings " Request for Admissions '' filed XX/XX/year>, signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Ark-bar # XXXX ). Their certificate of service falsely stated the discovery was mailed XX/XX/year>, while the envelope was post-marked XX/XX/year>, Exhibits were filed on this issue on my Motion Summary Judgment file XX/XX/year>. After the court was asked to take judicial notice of systemic affidavit irregularities, the firm continued to rely on the same boilerplate verification affidavits signed by an affiant who continued to execute mass signed affidavits. Attorney XXXX XXXX name ( Ark-bar # XXXX ) remained on filings after leaving the firm, with no required Rule 64 ( b ) withdrawal or substitution, Exhibits for this were also on the Summary Judgment. Together, these acts reflect false certification, improper representation, and coercive tactics inconsistent with professional-conduct standards. I also filed a related complaint with the XXXX XXXX XXXX, Complaint ID # XXXX. XXXX  confirmed by email that they made multiple contact attempts to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, with no response. This demonstrates an ongoing refusal by these entities to engage in good-faith resolution or acknowledge verified court outcomes, even when approached through standard consumer-resolution channels. 

>Harm : The harm in this matter is substantial and ongoing. I incurred extensive time loss, financial cost, and emotional distress defending a debt that a court ultimately ruled invalid. Their actions created false credit data, prolonged litigation stress, and reputational damage that continue to affect my financial standing. Beyond personal impact, the systemic use of falsified or mass-signed affidavits suggests a widespread consumer-level riskpotentially thousands of individuals facing judgments or credit damage based on defective evidence. This conduct doesnt reflect a clerical error ; it reflects a calculated disregard for accuracy, due process, and consumer protection.

>There is a massive amount of supporting evidence is on the public docket. All filings with Exhibits can be found on XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Additional supporting evidence includes : >>Attachment 1 : XX/XX/XXXX dispute confirmation ( showing court order attached yet verified within 24 hours ) ; >>Attachment 2 : Screenshot of TransUnion dispute history where LVNV/Resurgent have continued to verify this debt, during litigation, and after litigation, where I was the prevailing party. ( XXXX XX/XX/year> ) ; >>Attachment 3 : The court Order Granting Summary Judgment in my favor ; >>Attachment 4 : A screenshot of my XXXX  Credit Report no Credit One tradeline >>Attachment 5 : A screenshot of the LVNV/Resurgent Tradeline that was verified again by LVNV Resurgent, 8 Days after Summary Judgement.

>>Attachment 6 : The response from the XXXX XXXX XXXX  regarding the status on the XXXX XXXX XXXX Complaint on XXXX and XXXX XXXX. regarding the issues involved during litigation. I am sending my grievance to the Arkansas Office of Professional Conduct soon.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief