Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response If you wish, you may update it before sending it Revdex.com:The business did give an accurate account of the matter, the matter has been on going since late October, with the Missing checks.However since the matter has finally been resolved I am somewhat satisfied I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12657612, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of why I am rejecting this response appear below:All funds were paid in from the garnishmentTo added more Fees different times to the original garnishment leads to the belief that they are incorrectly handling their books and taking moneys for people AFTER the garnishments had been fulfilled.I STILL demand the right to see the full accounting of my account because they still have not clearly stated how the account kept showing that more money than the original garnishment kept coming up, not once , not twice, but THREE times. No one should be that bad at keeping their books unless they are illegally adding "Fees" on the original amount due, even AFTER the bill has been paid off it appears that they are adding feesIf I need to start another Class action lawsuit over $215.11, I will. I have all pay stubs and court ordered garnishment paperwork to show that everything had been paid in good faith by me, which in turn will show that they are again in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)with adding certain costs that I contend were not recoverable, or had not been determined to be recoverable at the time they were added to the judgment balance.
Regards,
Kristina Vore

In response to the consumer complaint, our law firm brought a lawsuit for collection on a defaulted Tribute Mastercard account bearing number [redacted] in 2008.   We were retained by our client, Midland Funding LLC, and suit was filed on October 29, 2008 in the Michigan 68th...

Judicial District Court.  The lawsuit was personally served on the Defendant on November 9, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.   On December 15, 2008, Judge [redacted] entered a Judgment against the Defendant, and it was served on him by the 68th District Court clerk.   There has been no appeal of the Judgment.  All these documents are part of the public court file.  Further, our records show that a copy of the Tribute Mastercard transaction history was mailed to the Defendant in 2008.  We have now mailed an additional copy to the complainant under separate cover, which includes details of use and payment on the account. Our review shows that the firm has complied with all relevant consumer statutes, Michigan Court Rules and statutes in this matter, and will continue to do so.  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

In response to the consumer’s complaint, our law firm brought a lawsuit for collection on a defaulted First USA account bearing number [redacted]. We were retained by our client and suit was filed on December 11, 2009, in the Michigan 67-4 District Court. The lawsuit was personally served...

on the Defendant on January 3, 2010, at 9:32 a.m. On January 29, 2010, the court clerk entered a Judgment with interest accruing at the statutory 6 month rate against the Defendant. The Judgment was served upon her by the 67-4 District Court clerk the same day. There has been no appeal of the Judgment. After no voluntary payments were received, our office requested and received a writ for periodic garnishment for the Defendant’s wages on June 26, 2014. This garnishment expired on December 25, 2014. As a balance remained outstanding, our office filed another request for periodic garnishment which was issued by the court on February 19, 2015, showing the total amount of the unsatisfied judgment now due (including interest and costs) was $ 5,806.93. This garnishment expired on August 20, 2015. A balance was still owed and our office requested and received another periodic garnishment which was issued September 14, 2015, and had an expiration date of March 14, 2016, showing the total amount of the unsatisfied judgment now due (including interest and costs) was $ 994.41. As a payment had been received by our office between the request for the garnishment and receiving the entered garnishment we corrected the judgment balance on the garnishment to $ 831.57. After the expiration of that garnishment there remained a balance due and owing. Our office request and received another periodic writ of garnishment issued June 20, 2016, with a service deadline of December 19, 2016, showing the total amount of the unsatisfied judgment now due (including interest and costs) was $ 207.62. No funds were ever received on this garnishment as the employer disclosed that she had been terminated. As there remained a balance on the Judgment, our office proceeded with an income tax refund intercept request to satisfy this Judgment. As of today’s date there remains a balance.

In Michigan, judgments accrue interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013.  The result of the application of this interest results in the original judgment balance increasing.  This particular judgment was accruing interest in accordance with MCL 600.6013(8).  The application and accrual of this interest was ordered by the Court on January 29, 2010.  No voluntary payments have been made to repay this judgment and the judgment is being paid through garnishments.   The costs for each successful garnishment may be added to the debt pursuant to MCR 3.101 and Michigan’s relevant garnishment statutes.   In 2015, the judgment would have accrued approximately five years of costs and interest which would increased the original judgment balance.  As the judgment balance was not paid in 2015, as noted in our prior response, additional garnishments were issued.  Pursuant to MCR 3.101, once a recovery was obtained on those garnishments, the costs of those garnishments was added to the debt.    As a result of the continuing interest and the costs of successful garnishments, the outstanding judgment balance has increased.

In response to the complaint, our law firm brought a lawsuit for collection on a defaulted [redacted] account bearing number [redacted] in March 2017.  We were retained by our client, Jefferson Capital Systems LLC, and suit was filed on March 29, 2017 in the Michigan 12th...

Judicial District Court.  The lawsuit was served on the Defendant and no responsive pleadings were filed.  On June 1, 2017, Deputy Clerk [redacted] of the 12th Judicial District Court entered a Judgment against the Defendant, and it was served on her on that day by the court clerk.   On July 19, 2017, a Writ of Garnishment was issued and served on the Defendant’s employer pursuant to MCR §3.101.  A disclosure dated July 28, 2017 was received from the garnishee defendant.  On December 4th, our firm received a check dated 11/27/17 which satisfied the account.  On the same day these funds were received, the firm immediately executed a garnishment release which was forwarded to the Michigan 12th Judicial District Court, and a courtesy copy was sent via facsimile to the garnishee defendant.  All funds remitted in excess of the amount which satisfied the judgment were returned to the garnishee defendant, and the matter is resolved.  There has never been any appeal, objection, or challenge filed with the [redacted].  A review of our file shows that the firm has complied with all relevant laws, statutes, court rules and procedures in this matter.  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.
Revdex.com:The business did give an accurate account of the matter, the matter has been on going since late October, with the Missing checks.However since the matter has finally been resolved I am somewhat satisfied.
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]

In response to the consumer
complaint, our law firm has no business with Michael Schmidt. Our account was
with his spouse, [redacted].  We were retained by our client, 
[redacted], for collection on a defaulted Target Bank account bearing
number [redacted]...

[redacted].   A lawsuit was filed in the Michigan
[redacted], and a judgment was entered by the Court on June
12, 2012.  As of July 2, 2015, there was still an unpaid balance remaining
on the Judgment.  The firm proceeded with a garnishment on behalf of our
client to attempt to resolve the balance.  After our office had proceeded
with a garnishment, the Defendant’s husband contacted our office.  A
settlement was negotiated whereby the Defendant resolved the outstanding
judgment balance, and received a discount off the amount that was outstanding.
The Defendant has paid the settlement. A Release of Garnishment has been
submitted to the Court.  Our firm has never received any funds from the employer
on the garnishment.  If any funds are being withheld by the employer, the
Defendant should consult with their work human resources representative. We
have followed all rules, laws and statutes in this matter, and are in the
process of closing this file.

Revdex.com Case # [redacted] - [redacted]
Customer Info: [redacted].
[redacted]
 
Our office has reviewed the
matter and we have confirmed that Ms. [redacted] has been properly credited with
the valid payments she submitted.  She received an Order from the Michigan [redacted]...

[redacted] Court allowing payments of $150 every two weeks beginning in May
2014.  Since the filing of the complaint, we have reviewed and confirmed
that our online payment option is operating correctly.  Also, since the filing,
our telephone representatives have spoken with her, and given her a different
payment option which she utilized on October 6th and again on the 13th. 
However, our bank has informed us that these payments were returned “unpaid” by
her bank due to “unable to locate account”.  Our office has not received
any valid payment on the account since August 2014.   Our firm
accepts checks through the mail and by phone, online payments and money gram
payments.  Our telephone representatives are trained and authorized to
assist in the details regarding submission of a payment.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your rejection of the business's offer. 
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of why I am rejecting this offer appear below:
I have attempted to make my bi-weekly payments of $150 since the beginning of September utilizing the payment website that was provided to me from the start of my case. I was never informed of that website being taken down and replaced by a new one until I called the office and inquired upon it. I was then provided with the new website and while I had the agent on the phone, I again attempted to submit my payment. I was not given a confirmation number and was told by the agent that I would receive a confirmation email once the payment had gone through. I did this two times with the company in September and when it did not process the second time, I again called the office and was told that the website was working properly and that I was not making my payments. I was then informed that I could do a check by phone so I proceeded to do this two times as well and both times I was told by the company that my account could not be found. When I spoke to an agent this morning, I was told that the routing number to my checking account had probably been changed and that "they see this happen all the time" and that I needed to contact my bank. I did call my local branch and was told that there is nothing wrong with my account and that my routing number had in fact NOT been changed. This is now the 4th time that I have attempted to pay on this account and something has conveniently stopped my payments from being taken by this company. In doing research on this company, Mary J. Elliott has been sued before regarding this same sort of happenings. I do not understand why they are making it extremely difficult to make timely payments unless they are running an entirely unethical company in which they intend on making people's lives miserable and are trying to get more money for/from their clients. 
Regards,
[redacted]

In response to the consumer complaint, our law firm brought suit for collection on a defaulted [redacted] account bearing number [redacted].   We were retained by our client, [redacted] LLC, and suit was filed on May 8, 2012 in the Michigan 37th  Judicial...

District Court.  The complainant filed an Answer with the 37th District Court disputing the allegations in the Complaint.  The case was assigned to Judge [redacted].  Our attorney duly investigated the dispute, and during litigation in this matter, our firm produced comprehensive documents, including a signed application for credit and months of statements which were sent to the Defendant’s home address listed as [redacted], MI.  A review of the monthly statements shows typical consumer use, including charges at local restaurants and gas stations and, significantly, substantial payments which were submitted and credited on the account. (For example 4/9/2009 $157.00 payment submitted; 6/12/2009 $100 payment submitted; 7/15/09 $75.00 payment submitted).  A motion for summary disposition was filed with the court pursuant to MCR§ 2.116.  Judgment was entered on September 9, 2012 against the complainant.  The complainant filed a motion to set aside the judgment which was denied by Judge [redacted] on October 15, 2012.  The complainant filed another motion to set aside the judgment which was denied by Judge [redacted] on January 28, 2015.  All copies of the referenced documents were served upon the Defendant pursuant to the applicable Michigan Court Rules.  Further, the documents are part of the public court file. Tell us why here...