Alabama Consumer Sues NCA and Smith Haynes For FDCPA Violations

by John Watts on November 24, 2011

An Alabama consumer sued the Kansas debt collection firms of NCA (National Credit Adjusters) and Smith Haynes & Watson for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state law.

The gist of the complaint is that these collectors allegedly lied to the Alabama consumer related to an alleged debt they claim the Alabama consumer owes.

Only when confronted directly did these collectors admit, although without apology, that the what the collection letter says is untrue.

This is a common tactic — lie to consumers to put the consumer on the “defensive” and to feel bad about supposedly breaking a promise.  The collectors know that if they can get a consumer to feel “guilty” — even when the basis is a lie — the consumer is more likely to pay money to the abusive collector, even if the debt is bogus.

It will be interesting to see how these two collectors defend this suit — will they stand united or will they turn on each other.  Will they deny everything and blame the Alabama consumer or will they blame each other?

Time will tell.

The allegations of the Complaint are listed below — the formatting is a little off but you can still get the idea of the allegations and the lawsuit itself is filed and public record.

COMPLAINT


COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and for her Complaint against the Defendants:

  1. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), out of state law violations and out of the invasions of Plaintiff’s personal and financial privacy by the Defendant and its agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff.
  2. Congress found it necessary to pass the FDCPA due to rampant abusive practices by dishonorable debt collectors.  15 USC § 1692 is entitled “Congressional findings and declaration of purpose” and it states as follows:

(a)        There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, decep­tive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

(b)        Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.

(c)        Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collec­tion of debts.

(d)       Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a sub­stantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate com­merce.

(e)        It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt col­lection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt col­lection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

 

[Emphasis added].

PARTIES

 

  1. Plaintiff  (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a natural person who is a resident and citizen of Alabama.
  2. Defendant National Credit Adjusters, LLC, (“NCA”) is a foreign debt collection firm that engages in the business of debt collection.  It conducts business in Alabama.  Its principal place of business is the State of Kansas and it is incorporated in Kansas.
  3. Defendant Smith Haynes & Watson, LLC, (“Smith Haynes”) is a foreign debt collection firm that engages in the business of debt collection.  It conducts business in Alabama.  Its principal place of business is the State of Kansas and it is incorporated in Kansas.
  4. Fictitious Defendants “A” through “F” (as set forth in the caption and fully incorporated herein) thereby intending to refer to the legal  person, entity or individual who attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff and who committed the wrongful acts alleged in the Complaint; names of the Fictitious parties are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time but will be added by amendment when ascertained.
  5. Any reference to any Defendants, NCA or Smith Haynes also includes all Fictitious Defendants.
  6. Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).
  7. Plaintiff allegedly owes a pay day loan to Westgate.
  8. Plaintiff is a consumer as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
  9. Smith Haynes was allegedly hired by NCA to collect on this loan.
  10. Smith Haynes is a debt collector under the FDCPA in its collection efforts against Plaintiff.
  11. NCA is a debt collector under the FDCPA in its collection efforts against Plaintiff.
  12. On or about September 7, 2011, Smith Haynes sent a collection letter to Plaintiff.
  13. NCA directed Smith Haynes to send this collection letter to Plaintiff.
  14. NCA approved of this collection letter being sent to Plaintiff.
  15. NCA had the opportunity to approve or disapprove of this collection letter before it was sent to Plaintiff.
  16. NCA knew of this collection letter before it was sent to Plaintiff.
  17. The collection letter states that the Creditor is “National Credit Adjusters: BMG”.
  18. It states the original creditor is “Westgate Group LLC”.
  19. It claims the Client number is “151650175338”.
  20. It claims the Smith Haynes account number is “152088”.
  21. The balance is stated as “$510.00”.
  22. The first sentence of the collection letter states “You previously made arrangements to satisfy your financial obligation to National Credit Adjusters: BMG.”
  23. Plaintiff, as of the time of this letter, had never spoken with NCA.
  24. Plaintiff, as of the time of this letter, had never received a letter from NCA.
  25. Plaintiff, as of the time of this letter, did not know NCA claimed to have a debt of Plaintiff’s.
  26. Plaintiff has never made any arrangements to pay any alleged debt with NCA.
  27. Plaintiff does not know who or what “BMG” stands for or what it means.
  28. The second sentence of the letter states “However, you failed to fulfill your commitment and those terms are now null and void.”
  29. Plaintiff has never made any commitment to NCA.
  30. Plaintiff has never failed to keep any commitment to NCA.
  31. There are no terms of any commitment between NCA and Plaintiff.
  32. There are no terms to be null and void between NCA and Plaintiff.
  33. Smith Haynes is employed by NCA to collect this alleged debt of Plaintiff.
  34. The third sentence of the collection letter states “National Credit Adjusters: BMG has employed SHW LLC [Smith Haynes] to recover the outstanding amount owed to them on the above referenced account.”
  35. On or about Friday, October 28, 2011, at approximately 9:40 am Plaintiff contacted Smith Haynes by calling 888-257-8993.
  36. Plaintiff spoke with a man who said his name was Arnell Montague.
  37. Arnell Montague admitted that there was nothing in the notes about any “previous payment arrangement with NCA.”
  38. Arnell Montague put Plaintiff on hold to check with his manager.
  39. After checking with his manager, Arnell Montague came back on the line.
  40. Arnell Montague told Plaintiff there was no indication of any payment arrangement with NCA.
  41. Arnell Montague told Plaintiff the account had been recalled back to NCA.
  42. Arnell Montague told Plaintiff that she would need to contact NCA.
  43. After the phone call with Smith Haynes and its employee Arnell Montague, Plaintiff called NCA.
  44. Plaintiff dialed 888-768-0684.
  45. NCA answered the phone and Plaintiff spoke with a woman who identified herself as “Christie”.
  46. Plaintiff asked Christie about the alleged payment arrangement with NCA.
  47. Christie told Plaintiff there has never been a payment arrangement with NCA.
  48. Christie told Plaintiff the reason NCA sent the account to Smith Haynes was to obtain payment arrangements.
  49. NCA does not own the alleged debt.
  50. NCA hired Smith Haynes to collect this debt.
  51. NCA approved of Smith Haynes’ collection efforts on this debt.
  52. NCA knew Plaintiff had made no commitment to NCA.
  53. NCA knew it had never communicated with Plaintiff prior to the collection letter of September 7, 2011, from Smith Haynes to Plaintiff.
  54. NCA knew Plaintiff had never broken any commitment to NCA.
  55. NCA knows that accusing a consumer of breaking a promise to pay is an effective psychological technique to increase the likelihood that the consumer will pay.
  56. NCA knows that accusing a consumer of having broken a promise to pay places moral pressure on a consumer to pay.
  57. NCA knows that accusing a consumer of having broken a promise to pay is accusing a consumer of lying.
  58. NCA knows that accusing a consumer of having broken a promise to pay is the same as calling the consumer a promise breaker.
  59. NCA describes  itself on its website[1] as “a privately held company founded on wholesome family values and conducts business with respect, dignity, and fairness.”
  60. NCA says on its website that “NCA employs some of the industry’s most experienced professionals while maintaining the highest standards of compliance.”
  61. NCA says  on its website “NCA is working with the FBI to resolve the Pay Day Loan Collection Scam please click the menu item ‘FBI Scam Alert for further information’.”
  62. NCA is not working with the FBI on the collection scam issue.
  63. NCA has sent out letters to alleged debtors of pay day loans that they should be careful of collection agencies demanding payment of pay day loans.
  64. NCA has also said in these letters that if the consumers pay a scammer, the consumers will still be responsible for paying NCA for the pay day loan.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

 

  1. NCA recognizes that there is a problem of bogus collection companies collecting pay day loans.
  2. NCA recognizes that there is a problem of scam collection companies collecting pay day loans.
  3. NCA recognizes that there is a problem of false representations being made by collection companies collecting pay day loans.
  4. NCA believes consumers should not do business with any collection agency that will lie in the collection of a pay day loan.
  5. NCA believes consumers who choose to pay a collection agency that lies about pay day loans, do so at the consumers’ risk.
  6. Smith Haynes knew Plaintiff had made no commitment to NCA.
  7. Smith Haynes knew NCA had never communicated with Plaintiff prior to the collection letter of September 7, 2011, from Smith Haynes to Plaintiff.
  8. Smith Haynes knew Plaintiff had never broken any commitment to NCA.
  9. Smith Haynes knows that accusing a consumer of breaking a promise to pay is an effective psychological technique to increase the likelihood that the consumer will pay.
  10. Smith Haynes knows that accusing a consumer of having broken a promise to pay places moral pressure on a consumer to pay.
  11. Smith Haynes knows that accusing a consumer of having broken a promise to pay is accusing a consumer of lying.
  12. Smith Haynes knows that accusing a consumer of having broken a promise to pay is the same as calling the consumer a promise breaker.
  13. Smith Haynes, on its website, says “we use the latest technological innovations, collection agency programs, and highly skilled professionals to change the way that subprime collection agencies operate.”
  14. Smith Haynes says on its website “Our high success rate and level of client satisfaction stems from the standard of persuasiveness, persistence and professionalism to which we hold our collectors.”
  15. Smith Haynes says on its website “Our methods lead to faster collections and strictly adhere to fair practices while giving you full transparency at every step.  With Smith Haynes & Watson’s ‘Real Access’ you have uninterrupted access to real-time status & performance reports and consumer account access to update balances or even to add a new note to the account.”
  16. Smith Haynes says on its website that two of the unique benefits it provides to clients and consumers include “Collection letters, Emails & SMS text messages” and “Internal auditing to ensure compliance with strict regulations.”
  17. In describing its fee arrangement with clients, Smith Haynes says on its website “Because our fee consists of a percentage of the debt successfully collected, it is in our best interest to collect as much of the outstanding debt as possible.”
  18. Smith Haynes proclaims on its website that “We strictly adhere to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977 (FDCPA).”
  19. Smith Haynes recognizes that there is a problem of bogus collection companies collecting pay day loans.
  20. Smith Haynes recognizes that there is a problem of scam collection companies collecting pay day loans.
  21. Smith Haynes recognizes that there is a problem of false representations being made by collection companies collecting pay day loans.
  22. Smith Haynes believes consumers should not do business with any collection agency that will lie in the collection of a pay day loan.
  23. Smith Haynes believes consumers who choose to pay a collection agency that lies about pay day loans, do so at the consumers’ risk.
  24. NCA has not apologized to Plaintiff.
  25. Smith Haynes has not apologized to Plaintiff.
  26. NCA has no intention of apologizing to Plaintiff.
  27. Smith Haynes has no intention of apologizing to Plaintiff.
  28. NCA has refused to give all required disclosures under the FDCPA when communicating with Plaintiff.
  29. Smith Haynes has refused to give all required disclosures under the FDCPA when communicating with Plaintiff.
  30. NCA is a debt collector under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
  31. Smith Haynes is a debt collector under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
  32. NCA and/or Smith Haynes have made one or more collection calls to Plaintiff’s work phone and/or cell phone.

SUMMARY

  1. All of the above-described collection communications made to Plaintiff by NCA and Smith Haynes and collection agents of NCA and Smith Haynes were made in violation of the FDCPA.
  2. NCA and Smith Haynes violated numerous sections of the FDCPA, including, but not limited to:  1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f, 1692f(1), and 1692g.
  3. The above-detailed conduct by NCA and Smith Haynes of harassing Plaintiff in an effort to collect this debt was also an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and resulted in actual damages to the Plaintiff.
  4. The above detailed conduct by NCA and Smith Haynes reflect their knowledge and appreciation for the harm that would naturally and likely happen to Plaintiff and with full knowledge thereof that NCA and Smith Haynes willfully, maliciously, recklessly, and/or negligently undertook their actions and it was successful in causing the harm to the Plaintiff that NCA and Smith Haynes wanted to cause.
  5. The collection activities by NCA and Smith Haynes and their agents caused Plaintiff stress and anguish.
  6. NCA and Smith Haynes’s repeated attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff and refusal to stop violating the law was an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and Plaintiff’s right to be left alone.
  7. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection communications by NCA and Smith Haynes in the form of monetary loss, anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration, damage to reputation, upset, humiliation, embarrassment, amongst other negative emotions, as well as suffering from unjustified and abusive invasions of personal privacy, which was due to the illegal conduct of NCA and Smith Haynes.
  8. The only way that abusive debt collectors like NCA and Smith Haynes will stop their abusive practices towards consumers is by a jury verdict fully compensating Plaintiff for the harm done to Plaintiff and by a punitive damage award.
  9. A punitive damage award will get the attention of NCA and Smith Haynes and other abusive debt collectors so that they will realize that it no longer makes economic sense to abuse consumers and to gain an unfair competitive advantage over honorable, law abiding collectors.
  10. A full compensatory damage award and a full punitive damage award will accomplish the goals of Congress in passing the FDCPA – stop abusive collection practices against consumers and prevent dishonorable debt collectors from having an unfair advantage over collectors that operate within the boundaries of the law.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR LIABILITY

  1. The acts and omissions of NCA and Smith Haynes’s agents who communicated with Plaintiff as more further described herein, were committed within the line and scope of their agency relationship with their principal NCA and Smith Haynes.
  2. The acts and omissions by these other debt collectors were incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities these agents were authorized to perform by NCA and Smith Haynes in collecting consumer debts.
  3. By committing these acts and omissions against Plaintiff, these other debt collectors were motivated to benefit their principal the NCA and Smith Haynes.
  4. NCA hired Smith Haynes to collect the alleged debt.
  5. Smith Haynes acted as an agent for NCA.
  6. NCA is responsible for the wrongful acts of Smith Haynes related to Plaintiff.
  7. NCA and Smith Haynes are therefore liable to Plaintiff through the doctrine of Respondeat Superior for the wrongful, intentional, reckless, and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of state and federal law by its collection employees, including but not limited to violations of the FDCPA and Alabama tort law, in their attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff.
  8. NCA and Smith Haynes negligently and/or wantonly and/or hired, retained, trained or supervised incompetent debt collectors and are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

 

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. The acts and omissions of NCA and Smith Haynes and their agents constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA with respect to the Plaintiff including, but not limited to the following:  1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f, 1692f(1), and 1692g.
  3. As a result of NCA and Smith Haynes’s violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages; actual and compensatory damages; and reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs, from NCA and Smith Haynes.

COUNT II.

INVASION OF PRIVACY

 

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. Alabama law recognizes Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of privacy and NCA and Smith Haynes violated Alabama state law as described in this Complaint.
  3. Congress explicitly recognized a consumer’s inherent right to privacy in collection matters in passing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when it stated as part of its findings:

Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

 

15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (emphasis added).

  1. Congress further recognized a consumer’s right to privacy in financial data in passing the Gramm Leech Bliley Act, which regulates the privacy of consumer financial data for a broad range of “financial institutions” including debt collectors (albeit without a private right of action), when it stated as part of its purposes:

It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers’ nonpublic personal information.

 

15 U.S.C. § 6801(a) (emphasis added).

  1. NCA and Smith Haynes and/or their agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt and thereby invaded Plaintiff’s privacy.
  2. NCA and Smith Haynes and their agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Plaintiff by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
  3. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
  4. The conduct of NCA and Smith Haynes and their agents, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Plaintiff, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by NCA and Smith Haynes which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
  5. The conduct of NCA and Smith Haynes went beyond the bounds of reasonableness in the collection of the alleged debt for all of the reasons asserted in this Complaint and based upon the evidence which will be presented at trial.
  6. As a result of such intrusions and invasions of privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from NCA and Smith Haynes.
  7. All acts of NCA and Smith Haynes and their agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such NCA and Smith Haynes are subject to punitive damages.

COUNT III.

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND/OR INTENTIONAL HIRING, TRAINING

AND SUPERVISION OF INCOMPETENT DEBT COLLECTORS

 

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. NCA and Smith Haynes negligently, wantonly, and/or intentionally hired, retained, or supervised incompetent debt collectors, who were allowed or encouraged to violate the law as was done to Plaintiff, and are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
  3. Had NCA and Smith Haynes hired competent debt collectors, the violations described in this Complaint would not have occurred.
  4. Had NCA and Smith Haynes properly trained and/or supervised the debt collectors, the violations described in this Complaint would not have occurred.
  5. NCA and Smith Haynes carried out its hiring, supervision and training activities in a negligent manner and also in a reckless, malicious, and/or intentional manner.
  6. NCA and Smith Haynes knew that the actions it was taking against the Plaintiff would likely, and certainly, cause the exact type of injuries and damages that Plaintiff suffered at the hands of NCA and Smith Haynes.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

  1. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
  2. NCA and Smith Haynes owe a duty to anyone they come in contact with to act reasonably so as to not unreasonably cause harm.
  3. NCA and Smith Haynes owe a duty to consumers against whom it is collecting to act reasonably.
  4. All of the actions described in this Complaint demonstrate that NCA and Smith Haynes did not act reasonably towards the Plaintiff.
  5. NCA and Smith Haynes, by its described conduct, breached its duty to act reasonably towards Plaintiff.
  6. NCA and Smith Haynes proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff which were of the precise nature that NCA and Smith Haynes anticipated causing when they breached their duty to act reasonably.
  7. NCA and Smith Haynes knew, or should have known, that their conduct was likely to lead to the Plaintiff’s injuries yet it acted despite this knowledge.
  8. NCA and Smith Haynes acted with full knowledge and with the design and intent to cause harm to Plaintiff.
  9. NCA and Smith Haynes was successful in their design, intent, and plan to cause harm to Plaintiff and this is the corporate policy of NCA and Smith Haynes when dealing with consumers who do not pay debts that NCA and Smith Haynes allege are owed.
  10. NCA and Smith Haynes acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
  11. NCA and Smith Haynes violated all of the duties NCA and Smith Haynes had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
  12. It was foreseeable, and NCA and Smith Haynes did in fact foresee it, the actions of the NCA and Smith Haynes would lead and did lead to the exact type of harm suffered by Plaintiff.
  13. NCA and Smith Haynes acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
  14. NCA and Smith Haynes invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth in Alabama law.
  15. Such negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, willfulness, and/or intentional conduct proximately caused the damages set forth in this complaint.
  16. As a result of this conduct, action, and inaction of NCA and Smith Haynes, Plaintiff has suffered damage as set forth in this Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendants:

COUNT I.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

 

  • for an award of actual damages against Defendants;
  • for an award of statutory damages against Defendants;
  • for an award of costs of litigation, expenses and reasonable attorney’s fees against Defendants; and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT II.

INVASION OF PRIVACY

 

  • for an award of actual damages from NCA and Smith Haynes for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent state law violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff;
  • punitive damages; and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.


COUNT III.

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND/OR INTENTIONAL HIRING, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF INCOMPETENT DEBT COLLECTORS

 

  • for an award of actual damages from NCA and Smith Haynes for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff;
  • punitive damages; and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT IV.

 NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

 

  • for an award of actual damages from NCA and Smith Haynes for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff;
  • punitive damages; and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ John G. Watts                                            

John G. Watts (WAT056)

M. Stan Herring (HER037)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:        

Watts & Herring, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 879-2447

(888) 522-7167 facsimile

john@wattsherring.com

stan@wattsherring.com

 

 

 

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY IN THIS CAUSE.

 

                                                                        /s/ John G. Watts                                            

                                                                        Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Serve defendant via certified mail at the following address:

 

National Credit Adjusters, LLC

c/o National Registered Agents, Inc.

150 S. Perry Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

 

Smith Haynes & Watson, LLC

c/o National Registered Agents, Inc. of KS

2101 SW 21st Street

Topeka, Kansas 66604


[1] All references to the website of NCA and to the website of Smith Haynes are from pages accessed on October 28, 2011, and are saved as PDFs.  If NCA and/or Smith Haynes or their counsel claim to not know if these statements have been made, the PDFs are available by simply requesting them from Plaintiff’s counsel so there is no need for the Answers of NCA and/or Smith Haynes to say that they can neither confirm nor deny the fact and therefore it is denied or any other similar boiler plate language that is in vogue right now in debt collector answers.


Previous post:

Next post: