Click Here
Asset Acceptance Corp
28405 Van Dyke Avenue
Warren
Michigan
48092
586-446-7818
586-446-7837
2840 S. Falkenburg Road
Riverview
Florida
33569
Branch offices in Baltimore, San Antonio, Cleveland & Brandon, FL
Cases Against Asset Acceptance Corp.
Etapa v. Asset Acceptance Corp., 373 F. Supp. 2d 687 (E.D.Ky. 2004).
Collection agency made false and misleading statements to consumer. The collection agency’s attorneys were not held responsible for these FDCPA violations.
Zamos v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., 423 F. Supp. 2d 777 (N.D. Ohio 2006).
When a debt collector provides inaccurate information to the credit reporting agencies, it is a violation of the FDCPA, but it is not a direct violation of the FCRA.
Hartman v. Asset Acceptance Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24845 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2004).
Debt collector violated the FDPCA by making false statements in an affidavit filed in state court.
Wright v. Asset Acceptance Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20675 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 1999).
Debt collector’s notice to consumer threatened a law suit based on the fact that consumer was employed full-time and failed to notify the collection agency. This is important because an unemployed consumer would not have viewed the letter as threatening suit but a consumer who was employed full time would interpret the letter as threatening suit.
King v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., F. Supp. 2d , 2006 WL 2714734 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 19, 2006).
Debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by reporting a fraudulent debt to the credit reporting agencies. The consumer did not dispute the debt as fraudulent until after it was reported to the bureaus.
Bull v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., 444 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D.Ind. Aug. 15, 2006).
Consumer disputed the amount of money the debt collector was charging in attorney’s fees. The debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by charging a very high cost for attorney’s fees. Consumer agreed to pay attorney fees if they defaulted on the debt.
Vickey v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., 2004 WL 1510026, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12426 (N.D. Ill. July 2, 2002).
The debt collector did not violate the FDPCA by charging a greater interest rate than the original creditor.
Share your experience or comments about this company.
Francis & Mailman, P.C. is not responsible for the creation or development of the below comments and does not endorse the views or opinions expressed therein.- NCO Financial Systems
- OSI - Outsourcing Solutions
- Asset Acceptance Corp
- NES - National Enterprise Systems
- LVNV
- Aurora Gold
- Fred Hanna
- Mann Bracken
- Meridian
- Marauder
- Midland
- United Recovery Systems
- Collect America
- Capital Recovery
- C. Barry & Associates
- Consumer Recovery Associates
- CMC Recovery
- Bay Area Credit
- Litigation Consulting Service
- Falzone



jhs
I just received a Small claims Summons today, May 2011, for this same claim. I still have received no basis for the legitimacy of this claim. I now have to take the time to go to court to defend myself against these unsubstantiated charges. I am considering countersuing for damages.
I have been fighting this harassment for more than five years now. So, as of today, I am reporting this to the Virginia States Attorney General, the FTC and the FCC.