Consumer complaint received 2019-04-17 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a complaint against XXXX for several violations of the FDCPA case # XXXX. Today, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX provided a response which cherry picks certain facts in order to support their claim that they acted lawfully. However, the facts say otherwise. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX claims : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX received a Bank of America acct ending in XXXX for collection. 
A Bank of America account was opened in my name ( XXXX XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX The address used was XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Mi. XXXX That on XX/XX/XXXX, they sent a letter which was not returned or a response received. 
That on XXXX, XXXX a lawsuit was filed in the XXXX District Court ( XXXX XXXX ) On XXXX XXXX, XXXX Service was perfected On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Judgment was entered against me ( XXXX XXXX ) for {$3700.00} On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX forwarded my fraud claim to Bank of America for investigation. 

Here are the facts XXXX XXXX XXXX left out ; Court documents do show certified mailing was returned as ; Return to Sender, Not deliverable as Addressed for case # XXXX ( see attachment ) Michigan Law is very clear that the Plaintiff MUST show a diligent effort was made to confirm Defendants address and the Defendant MUST have ACTUAL knowledge In XXXX, The Michigan Supreme Court clearly spelled out in XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, et al. Michigan Supreme Court B. DEFENDANTS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION As previously stated, defendants must also show that they did not in fact have knowledge of the pendency of the action in order to be entitled to relief under MCR 2.612 ( B ). This Court has not considered what is required for a party to have knowledge in fact under MCR 2.612 ( B ), but this Court has generally taken care to acknowledge that a difference in specificity exists between the phrase actual knowledge and mere knowledge. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( opinion by XXXX, XXXX. ) ( explaining that when the Legislature [ is ] careful to use the term actual knowledge, and not the less specific word knowledge, we determine that the Legislature meant that constructive, implied, or imputed knowledge is not enough ). 
But MCR 2.612 ( B ) does not simply use the word knowledge ; rather, it states that a defendant may be relieved of a judgment if the defendant did not in fact have knowledge of the pendency of the action.... ( Emphasis added. ) In fact is defined as [ a ] ctual or real ; resulting from the acts of parties rather than by operation of law. XXXX Law Dictionary ( 9th ed ). This definition further distinguishes actual knowledge from  constructive or implied knowledge of the pending action. Thus, we conclude that the plain language of MCR 2.612 ( B ) permits a defendant to seek relief from a default judgment as long as the defendant did not have actual knowledge of the pending action XXXX XXXX XXXX conveniently left out the fact the judgment they obtained was a Default Judgment. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX skipped steps and did not make a diligent effort to serve or notify Defendant. As a result XXXX & XXXX provided false information to the XXXX XXXX court for the purpose of obtaining a default judgment. 

* Anyone who initiates the most elementary XXXX Search, my correct address is the very first search link, there is no search link on the first 2 XXXX search pages that display any XXXX XXXX address as my residence or connected to me in anyway. See attached XXXX search results. 
* XXXX XXXX XXXX is a debt collection law firm, they are very aware of what Michigan law requires and if a Law firm is not held to that simple standard than how could any laymen or other entity be. Michigan Law can not be any clearer and the fact XXXX XXXX XXXX never even attempted the most basic XXXX search or any other internet search is obvious and either a deliberate or reckless violation of law. 
* In their response, XXXX XXXX XXXX never indicated whether all collection activity would end ( as required by law ) at least until after the investigation. 

***If XXXX XXXX XXXX does not dismiss the case by XX/XX/XXXX, I will retain Mr. XXXX and we will request a change in venue and file a counter suit, for FDCPA violations, providing false information under oath, etc Additionally, Attached is an Affidavit from the Manager XXXX XXXX , of the XXXX apartment complex, I have also attached the phone number of the XXXX apartment office. XXXX XXXX XXXX are welcomed to contact the Manager to verify his affidavit that Defendant, XXXX XXXX has never lived at or signed into any lease in the 10 plus years he has been the Manager. To HELP make it easier since XXXX XXXX XXXX seem to be unable to conduct the most basic XXXX search, I have attached a XXXX search contact information for XXXX Apartments. ( the search took me less than 20 seconds )

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