Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

mfcorey1

(11,001 posts)
Wed May 20, 2015, 08:57 AM May 2015

Woman wins $83 million in lawsuit against debt collector [View all]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/credit/woman-wins-dollar83-million-in-lawsuit-against-debt-collector/ar-BBjXI0E?ocid=ansMoneymag11

A Missouri jury ordered a debt buyer to pay nearly $83 million to a Kansas City woman it pursued for a $1,000 credit card bill she didn’t owe, NPR affiliate KCUR reports. The jury found Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC guilty of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for which it will pay $250,000 in damages, as well as maliciously prosecuting the woman, Maria Guadalupe Mejia, over the debt that did not belong to her. For the malicious prosecution, the jury awarded Mejia $82,990,000 in punitive damages.

PRA Group Inc., which owns Portfolio Recovery Associates, sent an email statement to Credit.com:

“This outlandish verdict defies all common sense,” wrote spokesman Michael McKeon. “We hope and expect the judge will set aside this inappropriate award, and we plan to file motions to make that request formally in the near term. Any fair reading of the facts of this case makes plain that a verdict of this size is not justice by any means, and cannot stand.”

Portfolio Recovery, one of the nation’s largest debt buyers, sued Mejia in February 2013 over the credit card debt, though the actual debtor turned out to be a man in Kansas City, Kansas, with a name similar to Mejia’s. The company pursued Mejia for the debt for 15 months after she first received notice of the lawsuit. In a written statement to KCUR, Mejia said, “The lawsuit terrified me.”
73 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Typical of people like that treestar May 2015 #1
Awesome! marym625 May 2015 #2
a lawsuit never occurred to me either, but it helped when the do-not-call list was created. Voice for Peace May 2015 #23
Next time we'll know better marym625 May 2015 #34
"Outlandish? Unfair?" Call the WAAAmbulance. vanlassie May 2015 #3
Took the words right out of my mouth. laundry_queen May 2015 #64
I've had my goround with those bastards. hobbit709 May 2015 #4
K&R! Omaha Steve May 2015 #5
I see they will go to a judge. No doubt they will shop for a rurallib May 2015 #6
They can't shop around. ColesCountyDem May 2015 #17
Not only can they not shop around they have to post an appeal bond MosheFeingold May 2015 #25
Yay Jesus Malverde May 2015 #7
Good. CharlotteVale May 2015 #8
Bankrupt them, put them out of business. bemildred May 2015 #9
I agree they should pay for their mistake davidpdx May 2015 #10
Good for the jury! mountain grammy May 2015 #11
She should robo call them now. Fantastic Anarchist May 2015 #43
at suppertime no less questionseverything May 2015 #44
Lol. Hassin Bin Sober May 2015 #57
lol Love it. ctsnowman May 2015 #70
Good! NV Whino May 2015 #12
HAHA, NV Whino Iwillnevergiveup May 2015 #65
Sounds like they co-opted your screen name NV Whino May 2015 #72
Let's hope this sets a precedent. Plucketeer May 2015 #13
You can file a challeng for free. If there is no response from the company that filed, it comes off. Thor_MN May 2015 #50
Not nearly enough. They should have to shed some blood, painfully, as well. n/t jtuck004 May 2015 #14
Am I the only one who thinks this is excessive? shockedcanadian May 2015 #15
Yes. lonestarnot May 2015 #16
It is meant to put them out of business. ncjustice80 May 2015 #18
No. TBF May 2015 #19
you have to understand --the judgment will, almost certainly, be reduced. and it is very unlikely niyad May 2015 #20
I see shockedcanadian May 2015 #27
No, you're not alone. The company would actually suffer more from a smaller verdict. Jim Lane May 2015 #24
Good stuff JIm shockedcanadian May 2015 #30
Your analysis is absolutely spot on. hifiguy May 2015 #36
It's 10% of their annual revenue. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #48
I once had debt collectors come after me for hospital charges that were 1monster May 2015 #26
Massive punitive damage awards like this SwankyXomb May 2015 #29
Oh Fuck No! This particular company makes this a practice. This is how they operate. Glassunion May 2015 #37
You have evidentially never been hounded bullied harassed and slandered by one of these parasite cos. Vincardog May 2015 #52
It's punitive to force changes in business practices IronLionZion May 2015 #53
Probably, but a strong message was sent WestSideStory May 2015 #59
she will probably never see a dime, but the message is clear. niyad May 2015 #21
I hope the 83 million holds up. ileus May 2015 #22
“This outlandish verdict defies all common sense,” Rex May 2015 #28
Ironically, now she has to hire debt collectors. n/t Bossy Monkey May 2015 #31
These assholes call here... Spitfire of ATJ May 2015 #32
Good. I hope it sticks, no matter how unrealistic DFW May 2015 #33
This is actually a flaw inherent in the adversarial court system of the US daredtowork May 2015 #38
Speaking as an attorney, I can tell you that there is hifiguy May 2015 #35
It's about 10% of their annual revenue. Which is probably where the number came from. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #49
I had a collection agency call me Canoe52 May 2015 #39
I've found an approach that works well catrose May 2015 #51
Tell them they died..... Spitfire of ATJ May 2015 #61
I've had that too! Canoe52 May 2015 #66
similar catrose May 2015 #71
I had that happen. FlaGranny May 2015 #68
Judges and Juries should be given the ability to shutter these criminal enterprises. Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #40
When will we start reading stories like this about the people whose homes were stolen by banksters? cui bono May 2015 #41
These guys again? ck4829 May 2015 #42
They won't end up having to pay it, but I sure wish they would... Agschmid May 2015 #45
I hope the verdict stands. blackspade May 2015 #46
It's more of a statement then anything... Lancero May 2015 #47
How many men Rolando May 2015 #54
What? Lancero May 2015 #58
Why did the police think Maria Guadalupe Mejia was a man? Rolando May 2015 #63
You mean the police that this story doesn't mention? Lancero May 2015 #73
This so warms my heart! colorado_ufo May 2015 #55
If anyone knows Crystal Berry, please tell her debt collectors have been Purrfessor May 2015 #56
The size of the judgment implies . . . MrModerate May 2015 #60
Years ago fingrin May 2015 #62
Roughly equivelent to 10% of PRA Group's retained earnings for 2014. Monk06 May 2015 #67
She should hire someone to call her 4 times a day asking for the money Renew Deal May 2015 #69
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Woman wins $83 million in...