Thursday, May 28, 2015



Missouri woman gets $83 million after debt collector sues wrong person over $1,000 credit card


Welcome! My name is Joel Z Williams and the purpose of this blog is to give tips and tricks and other life hacks to people of limited means.

Today marks my inaugural post in which I will discuss a landmark case which affects debtor’s rights regarding credit card companies. This case first came to my attention on March 14, 2015 after a story reported by Dan Margulies was published by a National Public Radio affiliated channel in Kansas City, Missouri. KCUR-89.3 FM aired the piece as part of its Heartland Health Monitor team program.
The case began in North Kansas City, Missouri after a debt collector wrongly sued a 51-year-old woman for allegedly owing a $1,000 credit card debt. The defendant in that case, Maria Guadalupe Mejia, says she never owned a credit card and first learned of the alleged debt on Feb. 6, 2013 after her husband showed her the plaintiff’s petition and summons.

Watch my YouTube video about this case:



The plaintiff in this case is known as Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. PRA is currently the second largest debt buyer in the nation, with its headquarters located in Norfolk, Virginia. PRA makes its money by purchasing defaulted credit card debt for pennies on the dollar from credit card companies and other debt buyers. PRA then assumes efforts to collect on those debts, usually through litigation in civil courts around the nation.

Just prior to the lawsuit, Mrs. Mejia, the defendant, had been working for approximately 15 years at a drycleaners on Independence Avenue in northeastern Kansas City, Missouri. She lost her long-standing job when the owner of that business closed the drycleaners right around the same time PRA filed his lawsuit against her. With no money and no way of convincing PRA that she did not owe the alleged debt, Mrs. Mejia ultimately turned to legal aid for assistance.

Legal aid unsuccessfully made several attempts to convince PRA to dismiss their case, but PRA would not be dissuaded. In fact, PRA continued on with their case for a total of 15 months. All the way to the point where the matter was set to be heard by Judge Joel P Fahnestock at the Jackson County Circuit Court. It was around that time when a law firm decided to step in and assume representation from legal aid on behalf of Mrs. Mejia.

High-powered lawyer and former Public Defender step into the fray


Two attorneys from the law firm of Slough, Connelly, Irwin andMadden, LLC. spearheaded the effort to challenge PRA’s assertions that Mrs. Mejia actually owed any credit card debt to them. According to one of those attorneys they appeared at two hearings and filed four motions in an effort to get PRA to provide documents verifying the alleged debt. Attorneys Gina Chiala and Fred Slough were unsuccessful in those actions. Fred Slough has been practicing since 1973 and is qualified to litigate before the Supreme Court. Gina Chiala is a former Public Defender in Jackson County, MO.

Judge Fahnestock finally grew weary of PRA’s failure to comply with discovery procedures and eventually had the plaintiff’s pleadings stricken from the record. That decision immediately moved the case to the award phase of the trial. It was around that time that the judge learned the true identity of the person who actually owed the $1000 debt in question. It was revealed that the actual debtor is a man who happens to have a similar sounding name as the defendant. Incensed by the plaintiffs actions, Judge Fahnestock determined that PRA had engaged in a malicious prosecution of Mrs. Mejia and an invasion of her individual privacy.

Judge gets hopping mad after learning of debt buyer's deceitful practices


The judge then awarded Mrs. Mejia actual damages of $250,000 for PRA’s willful violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). The judge also granted punitive damages to the defendant in the amount of $82,990,000 for PRA’s malicious prosecution of her for a period of over one year and three months, despite being informed of the mistaken identity.

After the trial was completed the defendant’s attorney Gina Chiala spoke to reporters. Ms. Chiala said that PRA has established a reputation within the field of consumer law as a company that aggressively pursues litigation against alleged debtors even in cases where there may be problems with the validity of those claims. A PRA spokesman issued a statement for the company indicating that Judge Fahnestock’s award was excessive and beyond the bounds of fairness. PRA says that they will pursue an effort to have the court review the verdict and perhaps set it aside.
According to publicly filed documents, PRA’s parent company, PRA group Inc., reported a total revenue in 2014 of $881 million. The company also reported a net income that same year of $176.5 million. The judgment in this case represents nearly half of the companies 2014 profits. Other sources also indicate that the top five executives of that organization each earned approximately $17 million in salary last year.

Debt buyers cannot sue you if the debt is too old


If you are currently being sued on a debt that you do not owe there are a few things you should know. Mrs. Mejia’s case is unusual in many ways, yet very typical of a debt buyer lawsuit. During her interview with reporters Mrs. Mejia revealed that she was scared of being arrested during the litigation process. This is a common fear that many defendants face when local sheriffs, acting as process servers, place legal documents into the hands of defendants. This is especially true of recent immigrants and others who may be from countries where law enforcement officials are corrupt.

Debt buyers take advantage of that fear and apprehension in several ways. For example, every state has a time limit in which creditors are entitled to sue debtors for payment. This is known as a statute of limitations. In Missouri, that timeframe is five years. Kentucky has the longest SOL, allowing creditors to sue debtors for up to 15 years! Here is a hyperlink to bank rate.com, a website which contains a state-by-state breakdown of individual SOL’s. Click Here to View .

It’s important for you to know that the SOL begins the moment that a debtor goes into default on their credit card. That date is known as the date of delinquency, and typically occurs within 90 days of the debtor’s first failure to pay. This can be important to you because creditors are time-barred by both state and federal laws from filing a lawsuit to recover a delinquent debt beyond the statute of limitations. You can receive money awards if a court determines that a company sued you beyond the statutory limitations.

Coming soon: 


In my next article I will discuss some of the most common attempts that debt buyers make in an attempt to get you to “reset the clock” on your states statute of limitations. Please bookmark this page and subscribe to my YouTube site where you can find the latest updates and additions to my tips on how you can fight back against creditors using several effective methods on consumer law.