Facing a $30,433 Garnishment Notice by
Great Seneca Financial Corporation, we quickly filed court papers to attack the validity of the
judgment and the validity of the plaintiff.
In the action, Great Seneca was named as "Great Seneca Financial Corporation AAO Direct Merchant's Bank." My view about using the "AAO" designation is reflected in a prior blog, "Debt Buyers Using Confusing Names is a Hot Issue for The Langel Firm."
Aside from the misidentification of the plaintiff, it turns out that Great Seneca is a dissolved Maryland company that later sold the judgment. Typical in debt-buyer litigation, the current owner of rights to the judgment is different than the entity cited in the caption of the case. That distinction is fertile grounds to make capacity arguments from a defensive standpoint, but it also supports arguments of deception under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Rather than address our arguments, Great Seneca, represented by Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., agreed to vacate the judgment, vacate the garnishment, and discontinue the action without our client having to pay anything.