Debt collection law firm Blitt & Gaines and debt collector Portfolio Recovery Associates have been hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing the debt collectors of falsely claiming debt collection complaints have been "verified," allegedly to allow their collection complaints to be processed more quickly and allegedly sidestepping the need to prove the debts are valid.
Gilberto Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others, filed a new class action against Blitt & Gaines P.C., Portfolio Recovery Associates and Barrister Investigations and Filing Service on March 24 in Cook County Circuit Court. Gonzalez is accusing Blitt of violations under the Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for allegedly filing motions for default judgements that were allegedly falsely verified.
According to its website, Blitt is a law firm dedicated to resolving collections attempts. According to the complaint, Blitt was retained by PRA, a company which purchases defaulted consumer debt and then, through litigation, attempts to recover it. Barrister is a detective agency that also acts as a debt collector through various means to locate assets a consumer has that can be garnished to recover a debt.
According to the complaint, Blitt and PRA routinely use the services of Barrister to obtain affidavits of execution, a regular part of the process in debt collection cases they file. The suit accuses Blitt of then using the affidavits executed by Barrister, to mislead consumers into believing the collection action against them has been validated.
An Affidavit of Execution is a sworn statement that attests a document in question was physically signed and witnessed. According to court documents, Blitt mailed a copy of the complaint and summons in a sealed envelope to Gonzalez on February 18, 2022. However, the affidavit which avers that a copy was mailed on the 18th was executed on the 17th, a full day earlier than the alleged date it was mailed. Therefore, the suit contends that the affidavit is false.
According to the complaint, PRA hired Barrister to obtain the affidavit. Barrister, the suit claims, ostensibly has a history of submitting "robo-signed" affidavits like the one against plaintiff Gonzalez, that allegedly were never physically reviewed and which are allegedly misrepresentations of the consumer. According to the complaint, on the same date the affidavit was supposedly signed, an agent of Barrister, Julian D. Bennett, appears on the affidavit as having sworn to the validity of the claim against Gonzalez.
The complaint asserts that Bennet's signature, which appears to be a physical signature, is an electronic signature, that he did not review or sign it, and would not have been aware of the filing since it was "robo-signed".
Barrister, the complaint alleges, is in effect, sidestepping due process, creating the appearance to consumers like Gonzalez that the action against them has been reviewed and validated. In other words, a signed affidavit renders the claim against a consumer ostensibly "verified" or uncontested.
This is a critical juncture for this complaint as, under Illinois law, a complaint registered as verified can be used to obtain a default judgement so that "prove up" is not required. And according to the complaint, Gonzalez received an allegedly verified Motion for Default and Judgement which asked the court to enter a judgement for the amount in default in the allegedly verified complaint.
It's therefore reasonable to conclude, court documents contend, that most consumers receiving such a motion, would be misled into believing that as a result of a debt complaint being shown to be verified, and therefore unable to be challenged in court, there is no reason to show up in court to defend the complaint. Such misrepresentation, the suit asserts is a clear violation of FDCPA by Blitt that Gonzalez claims is an attempt to obtain fraudulent judgments.
Further, the suit states that the motion which eludes to a verified complaint, was never filed with the court at any point by Blitt, allegedly on behalf of PRA.
The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include potentially everyone in Cook County who has received such allegedly falsely verified motions from Blitt and the other defendants in the past year. The complaint does not estimate how many people that may include, but says it is at least more than 40 people.
Plaintiff is demanding a trial by jury and is seeking actual, statutory and punitive damages, plus court costs and legal fees.
Gonzalez is represented by attorney Mario Kris Kasalo, of The Law Office of M. Kris Kasalo, of Skokie.