Have you been sued?

    If you have been sued in Texas, and the suit alleges that you failed to pay a debt, we might be able to assist you.  Please contact our office at the telephone number listed above as soon as possible after you learn about the suit.

Relief from Debt Collection Abuse

    State and federal law protects Texas residents from abusive and improper collection tactics. Consumers and businesses have varied rights, depending upon the type of debt, whether the debt is being collected by an original creditor, “debt buyer,” collection agency, or collection attorney, and the manner in which someone is attempting to collect a debt. We represent people throughout Texas who are being abused by debt collectors.  Call today for a case evaluation.

Our Attorneys:

T. Dean Malone, the President of the firm, earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Texas at Dallas, where he graduated summa cum laude. Mr. Malone graduated from Baylor University School of Law with a concentration in general civil litigation. While at Baylor, Mr. Malone served as the Executive Editor of the Baylor Law Review. Mr. Malone wrote Castano v. American Tobacco Co. and Beyond: The Propriety of Certifying Nationwide Mass-Tort Class Actions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when the Basis of the Suit is a "Novel" Claim or Injury, 49 Baylor L. Rev. 817 (1997).  Mr. Malone is a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Christian Trial Lawyers Association, and National Association of Consumer Advocates.  T. Dean Malone is licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Texas.  T. Dean Malone is also admitted to practice in the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the federal courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas.

Michael T. O'Connor, an attorney with the firm, earned his law degree from Texas Tech University School of Law, with the highest distinction of summa cum laude. Mr. O'Connor is a member of the Order of the Coif. After law school, Mr. O'Connor was a law clerk to the Honorable Charles Holcomb, Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  Mr. O'Connor is a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.  Mr. O'Connor is licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Texas.  Mr. O'Connor is also admitted to practice in the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the federal courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas.

Federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act

    The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is the primary statute protecting consumers from abusive debt collection practices. Congress passed the statute because it found:

    "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."

    The FDPCA applies primarily to third-party debt collectors (collection agencies and attorneys). However, it can apply to original creditors in certain circumstances and does apply to those who purchase debt which is already in default. The FDCPA covers only collection of actual or alleged consumer debts, or those debts arising from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. However, because the FDCPA applies to any person, a person other than the consumer who allegedly owes the debt can assert a claim. Some common FDCPA violations are:

· Communicating with improper third parties regarding a purported consumer debt without the consumer’s consent

· Communicating with the consumer at the consumer’s place of employment when the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits such communications

· Harassing, oppressing, or abusing a consumer by, including but not limited to:

· Using language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the consumer
· Causing a telephone to ring or engaging a person in conversation continuously or repeatedly with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass a consumer
· The placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity

· False, deceptive, or misleading representations, including but not limited to:

· Falsely representing that the debt collector is affiliated with the government
· Misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of a debt
· Falsely representing that the debt collector is an attorney
· Falsely representing that a consumer will be arrested for failure to pay a debt
· Falsely representing that a person’s wages will be garnished
· Threatening to take action which the debt collector cannot legally or does not intend to take
· Falsely representing that a person committed a crime in order to disgrace the person
· Failing to properly disclose that a debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information will be used for that purpose

· Unfair practices including but not limited to:

· Collection of a charge not authorized by law or the agreement creating the debt
· Threatening to take nonjudicial action to dispossess property when there is no legal right to do so or such action is not intended

· Failing to send the consumer a validation of debt notice within the
  requisite time

· Continuing to attempt to collect a debt after a consumer requests
  validation but before a debt collector takes action required by law

    If an individual files suit against a debt collector, the individual can recover money damages for actual damages suffered, statutory damages of up to $1,000.00, attorneys’ fees, and costs. A class action can be appropriate when a debt collector has used essentially the same unlawful conduct against numerous people.

    Unlike the FDCPA, which applies to creditors only under certain circumstances, most of the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”) applies to creditors and third-party collectors (collection agencies and attorneys). Most of the common violations of the FDCPA listed above would also be violations of the TDCA. Further, a violation of the TDCA is a per se violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act (“DTPA”). Improper collection tactics can also violate the DTPA because they are unconscionable.

    There are two primary requirements imposed by the TDCA which are not imposed by the FDCPA. First, a third-party debt collector must secure a $10,000.00 bond to secure payment to a claimant for violation of the TDCA. A third-party debt collector is generally a collection agency or attorney, an attorney who employs non-attorneys in the collection of consumer debts, and a person or company that purchases debts which are in default. If a third-party debt collector fails to secure a bond, that failure is itself a violation of the TDCA.

    Second, creditors and third-party debt collectors have certain affirmative duties when a consumer disputes a debt. The duty imposed depends upon the manner in which the debt has been treated and when the dispute occurred.

    A person can recover for a violation of the TDCA monetary damages for actual damages suffered (a minimum of $100.00 for some claims), attorneys’ fees, and costs. A court can also grant an injunction to stop a debt collector from engaging in conduct prohibited by the statute.

Common-Law Causes of Action

    There are also common law causes of action in Texas available to those harmed by abusive and harassing collection efforts. An injured party can sue for unreasonable collection efforts, invasion of privacy (intrusion on seclusion), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. If the debt collector’s conduct is egregious, a jury can award exemplary (a/k/a “punitive”) damages.

Helpful Links and Pages

Typical Cases:

     Our firm receives numerous contacts each month regarding abusive and improper debt collection practices.  We represent consumers for such claims in courts throughout Texas.  Most consumers initially ask our firm to determine whether certain actions by a debt collector violate the law.  While every case is different, and the purpose of this website is to provide general information only, we find that consumers report similar conduct by debt collectors.  The following cases are fictional, but they are based upon information learned from talking to numerous consumers.

Case #1:

     A debt collector using the name Jimmy Durante calls a Texas consumer and sternly reprimands her for failing to pay a debt resulting from dental work.  Mr. Durante tells the consumer that she must pay the debt or wage garnishment will begin.

     A Texas consumer's wages cannot generally be garnished for failure to pay a non-government-related consumer debt such as medical expenses and credit card debt.  A portion of a person's wages could be taken for child support, failure to pay a government-guaranteed student loan, or failure to properly and/or timely pay federal income taxes.

Case #2:

     A debt collector using the name Judy Garland tells a consumer to pay an alleged consumer credit card debt or else Ms. Garland will have a warrant issued for the consumer's arrest.  Ms. Garland warns the consumer that it will be very embarrassing  when "the sheriff" arrests the consumer in front of his coworkers.

     A person cannot generally be arrested for failure to pay a consumer debt.  Debtors' prisons were outlawed long ago.

Case #3:

     A debt collector using the name Herbert Hoover calls a consumer's neighbors and/or relatives.  Mr. Hoover tells them that the consumer owes a debt and needs to call Mr. Hoover to discuss the debt.  Mr. Hoover even asks the consumer's neighbor to take a note to the consumer with Mr. Hoover's name and phone number on it.

     A debt collector can generally only contact persons other than the consumer to determine location information about the consumer.

Case #4:

     A debt collector using the name Lisa Presley calls a consumer's workplace after being asked by the consumer to cease all such calls.

     A debt collector cannot continue calling a consumer at her place of employment if the debt collector knows that such calls are inconvenient or are prohibited by the consumer's employer.

Case #5:

     A debt collector faxes to a consumer's workplace a "verification of employment" ("VOE") form without the consumer's permission.  The VOE seeks information including the consumer's date of hire and salary.  The law prohibits such third-party contact for any purpose other than to determine location information.

Case #6:

     A consumer sends a letter to a debt collector asking the debt collector to cease all contact with the consumer regarding the alleged debt.  The debt collector continues calling the consumer and/or sending the consumer letters in attempts to collect the debt.  The debt collector's actions violate the law by not honoring the consumer's demand to cease all communication regarding the alleged debt.

Case #7:

     A repossession company truck driver attempts to repossess a car while a consumer is in the car.  The repossession agent attempts to grab the keys from the driver and/or hooks the car to the repossession truck and begins to tow the car.  The repossession attempt would likely violate Texas law due to a breach of the peace during a repossession attempt.

Case #8:

     A company sues a consumer and alleges that the consumer owes money to the company for an alleged debt.  The consumer has never heard of the company.  The company alleges that it purchased the debt from another company, and that the consumer owed money to the first company.  If the company that filed suit does not own the debt, it could be sanctioned for filing a bad-faith lawsuit.  The company might also be liable for violating Texas and federal law regarding improper debt collection practices.

Other Practice Areas: