New York City Debt Collection Defense Attorney
Cutting-Edge Legal Representation Manageable Fee Structures

We Defend You Against
Credigy Receivables, Inc.

The Langel firm defends consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Credigy Receivables, Inc. In appropriate cases, we may also take action against Credigy Receivables, Inc. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and other applicable laws.

Credigy Receivables, Inc. is often represented by Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C., Smith, Carroad, Levy & Frankel, LLP, Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C., and Forster & Garbus, LLP.


Steinbach v. Credigy: Refusal to Dismiss Debt Dispute Claims

In Strinbach v. Credigy Receivables, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-114-JBC, the court denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment regarding alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act by the plaintiff, Tara Steinbach. The court upheld Steinbach's right to dispute the debt's validity and her claims for abuse of process and unauthorized practice of law. Strinbach v. Credigy Receivables, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-114-JBC (March 24, 2006).

Core Takeaways:

  1. The Court's Rejection of Summary Judgment: The court denied the defendants' request for partial summary judgment, ensuring that the case would proceed, and the plaintiff's allegations would be fully examined.

  2. Declaratory Judgment: The court ruled that Steinbach could dispute the validity of the debt, rejecting the defendants' claim that Steinbach was not entitled to such a declaration.

  3. Claim of Abuse of Process: The court found that Steinbach had adequately pleaded abuse of process, determining that the motion for summary judgment on this issue was premature.

  4. Unauthorized Practice of Law: The court allowed Steinbach's claim of unauthorized practice of law to stand, disagreeing with the defendants' argument that the court should dismiss this claim.

  5. Mootness Rejection: The court rejected the defendants' claim of mootness based on their offer of judgment. The court found that the defendants' offer did not satisfy all of Steinbach's demands and that there were still live issues of law and fact in the case.

District Court Denies Credigy Receivables, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Based on Issues Concerning the Applicable Statute of Limitations

In Rawson v. Credigy Receivables, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2006), the court denied Credigy Receivables, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, which turned on the applicable statute of limitations.

The plaintiff consumer in this case brought a two-count class complaint, alleging that Credigy Receivables violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for threatening to sue on a time-barred credit card debt. Illinois law provides that actions on written contracts must be commenced within ten years of the cause of action, while actions based on unwritten contracts must be commenced within five years. In Illinois, contracts are considered written only if "all the essential terms of the contract are in writing and are ascertainable from the instrument itself."

Here, the plaintiff consumer alleged there was no written contract, and thus the five-year statute of limitations applied. Credigy Receivables asserted that the credit card debt was governed by the ten-year statute of limitations, but failed to submit a written contract to support their motion to dismiss. Because the court could not find "beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief," Credigy Receivables' motion to dismiss was denied.

Credigy Receivables, Inc. Pursues Suit against a Victim of Identity Theft, Resulting in Court-Ordered Award of Attorneys' Fees to Victim

Credigy Receivables, Inc. appealed a trial court order, which awarded $26,101.75 in attorneys' fees to a victim of identity theft who was defending herself against Credigy's efforts to enforce a debt against her, in Credigy Receivables, Inc. v. Whittington (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to the victim.

In 2008, Credigy Receivables purchased and became the assignee of a judgment against a consumer named "Blanche Whittington." However, the real Ms. Wittington did not incur the debt underlying the judgment: she was the victim of identity theft. The real Ms. Whittington retained counsel, and Credigy Receivables' counsel was immediately notified of the error. Ms. Whittington's counsel moved for relief from the judgment and requested attorneys' fees, which the trial court granted.

Credigy Receivables argued that attorneys' fees were unjustified in this case because the default judgment was presumptively valid and presented a justiciable issue as to Ms. Whittington's identity and indebtedness, and because Credigy suspended enforcement efforts once it received evidence that Ms. Whittington was not liable. The Court of Appeals, however, found that Credigy never had the right to enforce its purchased judgment against Ms. Whittington because its assignor never had a true claim against Ms. Whittington for the underlying debt.

In North Carolina, attorneys' fees may be awarded by the trial court where the court finds that there is a "complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the losing party." The court found that Credigy lacked standing to bring suit against Ms. Whittington because it never suffered an injury in fact – there was no legally protected contractual interest as to the real Ms. Whittington. The court further found that Credigy should have recognized that the pleadings failed to "present a colorable claim that Ms. Whittington was the debtor." Because Credigy should have been aware that it was pursuing a non-justiciable claim, attorneys' fees were properly granted.

3 Takeaways from Credigy Receivables, Inc. v. Whittington:

  1. Pursuing Invalid Debts: Despite being informed that Ms. Whittington was a victim of identity theft and not the real debtor, Credigy Receivables, Inc. continued their efforts to enforce a debt against her. This highlights the importance of verifying debts especially in cases of identity theft.

  2. Justiciable Issue Requirement: The case underlines that in North Carolina, if a losing party fails to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact, the court may award attorney's fees to the winning party. In this case, Credigy lacked standing to sue because they never had a legitimate claim against Ms. Whittington.

  3. Responsibility of Debt Collectors: The Court of Appeals asserted that debt collectors, like Credigy, should be more diligent in verifying the validity of their claims before pursuing them. As a result, the court affirmed the award of attorney's fees to Ms. Whittington, emphasizing that debt collectors may face penalties for pursuing non-justiciable claims.

More information to help with a wage garnishment:

Here is a list of New York City’s Marshals who enforce wage garnishments:

How much can Asset Acceptance garnish my wages?​​​If you need help, call us at (888) 271-7109 or complete this form.

Credigy Receivables, Inc. Biographical Information

Credigy Receivables, Inc. is a foreign business corporation incorporated in Nevada and is principally located at 3715 Davinci Ct Ste 200, Norcross, GA 30092-2749. It is licensed (#1325842) by the Department of Consumer Affairs to collect debts in the City of New York.

Alternate Business Names:
  • Credigy
  • Credigy Receivables
  • Main Street Acquisition Corp.

Fax Numbers: (678) 684-4975