Consumer complaint received 2025-06-05 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: Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.
State: NE

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is submitted against Gurstel Law Firm and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX. for unlawful debt collection practices in violation of Nebraska statutes and federal consumer protection laws. The debt in question is time-barred under Nebraska law as listed below and found in attachments, and the service of summons was never legally completed, rendering the default judgment and subsequent garnishment improper and unlawful. 

Key Allegations 1. Improper substitute service in violation of XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX. XXXX. 
2. Entry of default judgment without proper service, violating due process rights. 
3. Violation of Nebraska 's 5-year statute of limitations in ( XXXX ). 
4. Gurstel is again unlawfully seeking garnishment despite previous accepting a hardship through the court and court determination of Head of Household in XXXX. 
5. Gurstel is committing Estoppel due to prior acceptance of hardship agreements and the court released garnishment in XXXX. 
6. Repeated violations of FDCPA and prior CFPB complaints against Gurstel Law. 

Requested Resolution 1. Vacate the default judgment in XXXX XXXX Court Case ID : XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
2. Prohibit further collection efforts on the disputed debt. 
3. Impose penalties or sanctions against Gurstel Law for improper service and filings. 
4. Require confirmation of compliance with Nebraska debt collection and service statutes. 



Details of Complaint : Fraudulent Default Judgment Based on Improper Service : Gurstel Law Firm, on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX, initiated legal action against XXXX Case ID : XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX, Nebraska. Despite repeated failed attempts at personal service ( documented on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ), a motion for substitute service was later granted, citing constructive service. I never received anything and was never properly served. 

In the affidavit of alias summons, the Plaintiff attests that all service summons including certified mail were attempted ; however, there is zero proof of certified mail or proof of certified mail or registered mail. Gurstel does not deny this fact now. The court was improper on issuing a default judgment due to the plaintiffs lack of proof of proper service according to Neb. Rev. XXXX. XXXX ( c ) Certified mail service which shall be made by ( i ) within ten days of issuance, sending the summons to the defendant by certified mail with a return receipt requested showing to whom and where delivered and the date of delivery, and ( ii ) filing with the court proof of service with the signed receipt attached ; ( d ) Designated delivery service which shall be made by ( i ) within ten days of issuance, sending the summons by a designated delivery service to the defendant, ( ii ) obtaining a signed delivery receipt showing to whom and where delivered and the date of delivery, and ( iii ) filing with the court proof of service with a copy of the signed delivery receipt attached. As used in this subdivision, a designated delivery service means a delivery service designated as such pursuant to XXXX U.S.C.XXXX ( f ) and a signed delivery receipt included. 

This refusal to act on statute by Gurstel Law should move the court to vacate its judgment of the subsequent action which unlawfully resulted in a default judgment entered on XX/XX/XXXX without lawful service, violating Neb. Rev. XXXX. XXXX and my constitutional right to due process. 

Constructive service should only be allowed when all due diligence requirements are met, and proof is shown. Here, service was never legally completed, and the defendant never received actual notice. Furthermore, the constructive service was not verified as received, in violation of Neb. Rev. XXXX. XXXX and procedural due process rights affirmed in XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ). Furthermore, if the court upholds that attorneys are the brightest and smartest of the population, a simple XXXX  search and linked in search would have sufficed at locating the defendant, me, for servicing at my place of employment. This lack of plaintiff accountability is demonstrative of the intentional unscrupulous misrepresentation of service, filed untrue statements with the court, and should be held to the highest sanctions and accountability allowed by law. 

Improper Default Judgment : Gurstel Law Firm filed a Motion for Default Judgment based on the above service irregularities, and the court improperly granted it. The resulting judgment ( {$7800.00} plus costs ) was procedurally and constitutionally improper. Furthermore, the Plaintiff states in the original complaint stated that no costs, attorney fees or interest would be requested from the court ; however, Gurstel is attempting to collect both fees and interest. I did not receive legal notice nor was I provided a fair opportunity to defend myself in court as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Statute of Limitations Violation : Per Nebraska Revised XXXX XXXX, civil actions must be commenced within the prescribed statute of limitations. The underlying debt was incurred more than five years prior, and any action to collect is now time-barred under Nebraskas five-year statute of limitations for written contracts and open accounts. There is no indication of tolling applicable here. 

Furthermore, under Neb. Rev. XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ), the statute of limitations is which applied to my financial hardship status during the time in question. I only became knowledgeable of the judgment when my employer received the order of garnishment. At that time, when I appeared in court, the garnishment order was rescinded and Gurstel accepted to write off the debt as hardship. 

Most recently on XX/XX/XXXX, a letter for collection was mailed to defendant. Upon calling the Gurstel Firm, I recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX, a formal request for the validation of the debt was requested. However, the receipt of that request received XX/XX/XXXX failed to satisfy our lawful and reasonable request of which only included a copy of the credit card statement now of which is time-barred and over 5 years per Nebraska Revised XXXX XXXX Nothing was provided on the assignment or sale of the card to the collection agency, nor were any of the required court documents showing proof of service or the hardship acceptance write off. This is another example of Gurstel suppressing discovery in order to commit illegal collections.

Estoppel and Prior Hardship/Garnishment : Following a garnishment attempt in XXXX ( issued XX/XX/XXXX ), I appeared in court and was deemed Head of Household, rendering wages partially exempt. Garnishment was released by court order on XX/XX/XXXX. The creditor accepted the hardship as evidenced by the lack of collection for over 3 years to current, and failed to provide any terms of or evidence of a written-off hardship agreement prior to this date, constituting an estoppel by silence, as acknowledged in consumer protection doctrines. Therefore, Gurstels attempt to now collect and threaten garnishment is in violation of Nebraska state statutes and consumer protection doctrines. A written off hardship is no longer collectible. 

The continued pursuit of the debt in XXXX violates Nebraska garnishment statute XXXX, which requires specific procedures, notices, and a hearing opportunitynone of which were adequately provided. 

The same law firm, Gurstel Law Firm, has a well documented history of abusive, unscrupulous, and illegal collection tactics similar CFPB complaints involving : Use of improper service and default judgments. 

Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), including misleading representations and failure to verify debts.Continued Harassment and CFPB Precedent Complaints : Took or threatened to take negative or legal action 68 complaints Attempts to collect debt not owed 56 False statements or representation 27 The renewed substitution of counsel and attempted collection activities in XXXX are improper and directly contradict the prior garnishment release and hardship protections. 




Supporting Documents Submitted : Nebraska Revised Statutes ( Sections XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) Certified court documents showing improper service attempts, motions, and garnishment filings including false statement of service by certified mail with no evidentiary signatures, a motion for alias summons based on the fraudulent prior service claims CFPB history of complaints against Gurstel Law Evidence of garnishment release and court appearance ruling Head of Household with Plaintiff Counsel failing to appear. Further evidence can be sent to support harassment, and admittance that the case was written to hardship.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation