214-522-6424

this is a collection dept for lots of people in mid west to the pacific west
they owner of this has people lie about their real name . a guy name bryan keep calling me , so i sent a dont call letter and the own of the called me back asking to me pay or they will take me to court after i told him about what his people did calling me 5 am -11 pm i told him i filed a ftc complaint and he hung up the phone 5 min later bryan call from that office . they lie and i will be followin up ftc

put them in jail

Someone named Erick Sutton just called from 972-231-7292, looking for an ex-daughter in law and said there was a complaint against her nurse's license. I asked point blank if this was a collection matter and he said "no" and then gave me the number 214-522-6424 to have her call about the nursing complaint.

I will also be filing this with the FTC.

This number is from a debt collection agency (Law Office of Scott Wheats) that uses questionable collection practices.  When asked for documentation regarding this "debt" I am refused that information as well as the who the original debtor is.  While I know that there are people that do run and hide from debts, I try my best to pay my debts as best and as soon as possible.  I have had previous identity theft years ago and am still working on cleaning up that mess.  This number is for an agency that has swore at me (including on messages) refusing to send documentation, threatening jail and stating they are filing charges against me. And I have been told that they only payment they will accept is my bank account information on the phone......that is DEFINATELY not happening.  I have sent out a "cease and desist" order and hopefully that helps.  I hope this helps someone else getting harrassed.

Yes, John Montgomery presented himself as a lawyer. He just did not sound like one with his foul language.  So I asked him if he is licensed to practice law in his state.  He would not say Yes and danced around the question.  If he calls me one more time, I will file complaint with FTC against him and his company.

I live in alaska and was just informed by my sister that a message from a John Essel was on my parents" machine (where I used to live until now) and that he had talked to me last February, but for the life of me I don't remember ever talking to anyone based in Dallas. I've only even been to Dallas one time in my life, and as far as I know my finances are in order and creditors I owe I'm paying. Hmm... If something happens, who should I report this to?

John Montgomery and John Essel, are one in the same. He is not a lawyer as he claims. The company he works for is Lockhart, Morris and Montgomery. Their website is LMMCOLLECTIONs.COM. Though, I've heard him use other names and research on the Web reveals others have had him misrepresent the company name (such as in this thread). If you've ever conversed with him, you will also notice his accent changes. From slight to thick Texas accent.

He will make all kinds of threats. Threats that you should be aware, he can not, will not follow through on.

Let me put it out there, right now. I DO owe a debt. However, I had a major medical emergency (13 hours of open heart surgery), late last year, that has left me disabled since. I can't work. So the only money I get, is disability. I was trying to keep up with my bills, but trucking school debt, was not high on my list. Putting food on the table, utilities, car payments... you know... essentials, came first.

So earlier this year, I start getting these calls and hangups on my voicemail in the morning, before I wake up. My ringer is off when I sleep and if you can't leave a message, then its obviously not important enough. One day, he called at a reasonable time, so I answered the phone. His name was John Montgomery, he was a lawyer (he claimed) and they were going to sue me, if I didn't pay them the money I owed my creditor. I politely told him my situation and offered to make a payment arrangement with him. No, he said... they want the full balance ($800.00) paid now! Again, I explained my situation and would be more than willing to set up some arrangement to send them what I could, every month. He became even more irate, went off on an angry rant for several minutes and again threatened to sue. At this I laughed, knowing damn well they weren't going to sue me for $800.00. So I started poking back. "You're a lawyer huh? Well, my uncle happens to practice law in Texas. Former Asst District Attorney, maybe you know him." At this point he started dancing around. He knew that he had been caught in his lie.

So our conversation was basically over. I told him, when he was ready to make arrangements, to call me back and we would talk, otherwise don't bother me and I hung up. He immediately called back and before he could get 2 words out of his mouth, I again told him, "Sue me or call back when you're ready to make payment arrangements". 4 months roll by and I get a call from a John Essel, real polite, warm southern drawl. He wants to set up some arrangement with me. He then however, tries to dictate the terms and insists on giving them my banking information... but don't worry, they'll only take out the set amount, every month. I told him straight up, what I was going to send, when I was going to send it and by no means, were they going to get my bank info. He said he needed to send me a copy of the agreement and asked if I had a fax. I told him to send it to my mailing address, which he already had. A week later, I receive a form from them, asking for my banking information. No payment agreement... just a form. For those of you that don't know. Don't EVER fill one of these out. They WILL attempt to take full payment out at once and its perfectly legal for them to do so. They instead, got a cashier's check sent to them the same day, to the address on the form.

Don't believe their lies, don't fall for their intimidation. They are not going to sue you, get your license revoked, destroy your career, etc. They aren't anything other than a collection agent. They aren't staffed with lawyers, they're staffed with people making a commission on a debt collection. Tell them the terms that are agreeable to you, that you can work with. If they can't live with that, at the time. Tell them to call back when they are ready.

This number call me 2145226424 me talking about being me to court on my  voice mail I don't know
how are these people getting my number but this is the 2nd time I have chnage my number for harrsement.  And his name is Zack

Well, Sherall, if you paid your student loans for your nursing license, these people would not call you.

COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, XXXXXXXXXX, by and through his attorneys, XXXXXXXXXX, and for his complaint against the Defendant, LOCKHART, MORRIS & MONTGOMERY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff states as follows:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an action for actual and statutory damages for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq.
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
2. Jurisdiction arises under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1337.
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
III. PARTIES
4. XXXXXXXXXX, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) is an individual who was at all relevant times residing in Clinton Township, County of Macomb, State of Michigan.
5. The debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed was incurred for Plaintiff’s educational expenses.
6. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).
7. LOCKHART, MORRIS & MONTGOMERY, INCORPORATED, (hereinafter, “Defendant”) is a business entity engaged in the collection of debt within the State of Michigan. Defendant is incorporated in the State of Texas.
8. The principal purpose of Defendant’s business is the collection of debts allegedly owed to third parties.
9. Defendant regularly collects, or attempts to collect, debts allegedly owed to third parties.
10. During the course of its efforts to collect debts allegedly owed to third parties, Defendant sends to alleged debtors bills, statements, and/or other correspondence via the mail and/or electronic mail and initiates contact with alleged debtors via various means of telecommunication, such as the telephone and facsimile.
11. At all relevant times, Defendant acted as a debt collector as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).
12. At all relevant times, Defendant acted through its duly authorized agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers.
IV. ALLEGATIONS
13. On or about November 20, 2010, Plaintiff received a telephone call from a duly authorized representative of Defendant, who stated that he was calling to collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in the amount of $6,125.00.
14. Plaintiff told Defendant that because he was currently unemployed he was currently unable to pay for the debt he allegedly owed.
15. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it was aware that Plaintiff was receiving student loans.
16. Defendant then told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt then Plaintiff’s student loans would be frozen and he would be unable to access them.
17. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to withhold Plaintiff’s student loans from Plaintiff.
18. Defendant further told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt then Plaintiff would not receive his federal income tax return.
19. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to withhold Plaintiff’s income tax return.
20. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant further told Plaintiff that if he did not pay the debt he owed then Plaintiff’s financial accounts would be frozen.
21. Defendant’s representation, as delineated above, was false, deceptive and/or misleading given that, upon information and belief, Defendant had neither the power nor the authority to freeze Plaintiff’s financial accounts.
22. At no time during the course of the aforesaid telephone call did Defendant’s duly authorized representative provide Plaintiff with information regarding his individual identity.
23. On or about December 17, 2010, Mr. Drew Smith, a duly authorized representative of Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff and left Plaintiff a voicemail message.
24. Defendant stated that he was “calling regarding the claim that was due to be filed at the County Clerk’s Office.”
25. Defendant further stated that it required that either Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s attorney contact Defendant immediately.
26. Defendant then provided Plaintiff with a putative case number.
27. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff that it was a debt collector, that it was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose.
28. At no time during the course of the aforementioned voicemail message left for Plaintiff did Mr. Smith provide Plaintiff with information relative to Defendant’s identity.
29. Defendant’s representation that a claim was due to be filed at the County Clerk’s Office had the effect of conveying to an unsophisticated consumer that the failure to immediately contact Defendant would result in Defendant filing a lawsuit.
30. On or about December 20, 2010, subsequent to having received the aforesaid voicemail message, Plaintiff initiated a telephone call to Mr. Smith.
31. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he owed a debt in the amount of $7,656.00.
32. Plaintiff asked Defendant why it was attempting to collect $7,656.00 from him given that Plaintiff was previously informed by Defendant, on November 20, 2010, that the debt he allegedly owed was for $6,125.00.
33. Defendant told Plaintiff that he owed additional funds for fees and for the processing of paperwork relative to Plaintiff’s account.
34. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s contract with respect to the debt he allegedly owed did not provide for Defendant to collect additional fees from Plaintiff.
35. Upon information and belief, Defendant attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was in excess of the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed.
36. Defendant, by attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was in excess of the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed, misrepresented the amount of the debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed.
37. During the aforesaid telephone call, Defendant asked Plaintiff “[w]hy do you not own up to the fact that you owe this money?”
38. Defendant further told Plaintiff that it could tell Plaintiff was not making an effort to obtain funds sufficient to pay the aforesaid debt.
39. Defendant then intentionally disconnected the telephone call with Plaintiff.
40. Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff initiated a telephone call to Defendant and requested to speak to Mr. Smith.
41. Defendant’s duly authorized representative answered the aforesaid telephone call and informed Plaintiff “[y]ou do not need to speak to him. You will deal with me now.”
42. Defendant then stated “[y]ou do not know how to pay your bills. Is that why you are calling us and harassing us?”
43. Defendant’s statements as delineated above are neither statements made in an effort to seek payment from Plaintiff nor statements made to further the collection efforts of Defendant.
44. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to unjustly condemn and vilify Plaintiff for his non-payment of the debt he allegedly owed.
45. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to produce an unpleasant and/or hostile situation between Defendant and Plaintiff.
46. The natural consequence of Defendant’s statements was to cause Plaintiff mental distress.
47. On or about January 6, 2011, Mr. John Edell, a duly authorized representative of Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff and left Plaintiff a voicemail message.
48. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff that it was a debt collector, that it was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose.
49. At no time during the course of the aforementioned telephone call to Plaintiff did Mr. Edell provide information relative to Defendant’s identity.
50. During the course of the aforesaid voicemail message, Defendant stated it wanted to speak to Plaintiff to “identify whether this was something [Plaintiff] had an interest in resolving voluntarily or whether [Defendant] would need to get the help of the courts and the appropriate township involved.”
51. Defendant then stated “[t]he time is ten (10) o’clock central standard time on Thursday. I need you hear back from [Plaintiff] no later than noon tomorrow in terms of what [Plaintiff’s] intentions are.”
52. Defendant then told Plaintiff that if he failed to communicate with Defendant then Defendant would “move things forward.”
53. Defendant’s representations, as delineated above, had the effect of conveying to an unsophisticated consumer that if Defendant was not contacted by noon, on the next day, then Defendant would file a lawsuit.
54. Defendant has not filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
55. Upon information and belief, at the time of making the aforementioned threats, Defendant had no intention of filing a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendant has no authority to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
57. Upon information and belief, at the time of making the aforementioned threats, Defendant had no authority to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the debt he allegedly owes.
58. Defendant has not provided to Plaintiff, within five (5) days of its initial communication to collect the alleged debt, with written confirmation of the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor to whom the debt is allegedly owed or a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector.
59. In its attempts to collect the debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, Defendant violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692, in one or more of the following ways:
a. Engaged in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d;
b. Used obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(2);
c. Placed a telephone call to a consumer without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6);
d. Used false, deceptive, misleading and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect an alleged debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e;
e. Falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of any debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2)(A);
f. Represented or implied that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(4);
g. Threatened to take action that cannot legally or is not intended to be taken in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5);
h. Used any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning the consumer in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10);
i. Failed to disclose in communications that said communication was from a debt collector and that any information obtained during the communication will be used for the purpose of collecting a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11);
j. Used unfair and/or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f;
k. Attempted the collection of funds from Plaintiff despite having no lawful authority to do so in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f(1);
l. Failed to comply with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a); and,
m. Was otherwise deceptive and failed to comply with the provisions of the FDCPA.

Got a call from the same number 214-522-6424 about suing me to collect money on a debt i owed trying to upgrade through the college network. He threatened to hurt my nursing license.

i got the same voicemail yesterday and I called him back and he stated it was over the college network and I could lose my license if I didnt pay before they went to court today. Is this possible?

He told me the same thing about my nursing license. That is i didn't pay the college network what I owe them they would have my license taken away and they also said they would place this on my ssn and it would be with me forever they where rude, call me hunderd times and threatened me several times. So to me it looks like they need a class action against them.

I didn't go to school for nursing so why are they call me!? Mind our business and don't talk to people like they are stupid.

I also got a call from this number. I am in school at another University. I tried the College Network but I decided to go another direction. I tried to settle but they did not . I was laid off of my job after Hurricane Ike, and I am just getting back on my feet. Now they are harrassing me!!!!  They are a collection agency??? He sounded so unprofessional it was unreal. I am contacting my Attorney ASAP

You are right the TRUTH will set you free. Not some spin, you obviously like to amuse yourself with. Have you even reread your post. You know the computer puts little red lines under misspelled words and then gives you options for the intended word. Anyway... Through ones inability to accept personal responsibility, they actually create their own problems! I bet not a single one of you complaining on this page have taken personal action to clean your side of the street buy actually making any kind of payment for whatever it is that you obviously owe someone. If you are simply not going to pay the money that you owe, then stand on that!! If you would stop making commitments that you couldn't maintain you might not find yourselves being the recipient of ANY of these phone calls. It is always real easy to come up with plausible but untrue reasons as to why... But at the end of the day it is generally just sewn in to the character of the human being, we are financially morally sound or we are not. There is a simple solution to the problem that you obviously initiated...  PAY THE MONEY. Stop making bad decisions that involve the exchange of money and I GUARANTEE you will stop having to engage in these types of situations, remember there is always a common denominator in all your problems... YOU! You are not a victim... If you engaged in something that cost money that you did not pay for, in reality and technically they are the victim. Grow up ALL of you!!!

Through ones inability to accept personal responsibility, they actually create their own problems! I bet not a single one of you complaining on this page have taken personal action to clean your side of the street by actually making any kind of payment for whatever it is that you obviously owe someone. If you are simply not going to pay the money that you owe, then stand on that!! If you would stop making commitments that you couldn't maintain you might not find yourselves being the recipient of ANY of these phone calls. It is always real easy to come up with plausible but untrue reasons as to why... But at the end of the day it is generally just sewn in to the character of the human being, we are financially morally sound or we are not. There is a simple solution to the problem that you obviously initiated...  PAY THE MONEY. Stop making bad decisions that involve the exchange of money and I GUARANTEE you will stop having to engage in these types of situations, remember there is always a common denominator in all your problems... YOU! You are not a victim... If you engaged in something that cost money that you did not pay for, in reality and technically they are the victim. Grow up ALL of you!!!

I have researched hundreds of agencies that collect money and they all have these types of complaints and then the most IRONIC thing occurred to me... All these complaints are by individuals that owe someone else money and they are in the process of being held accountable, WOW! What a concept... a consumer can violate terms and conditions agreed on and when it come time to be responsible... Let's just start throwing temper tantrums by the filing of complaints, because "these mean ole' people are trying to make me do what I said I was going to do when I signed the AGREEMENT(S). I have never met  a single person in my entire life that had to file a complaint about people supposedly harassing them because "THEY PAID THEIR BILLS"... Seriously... just do the right thing to begin with!!!

I reached a settlement agreement with TCN 2 years ago and my last payment is in February. ( I cancelled auto pmt back in Feb 2006). However, I received a phone call (as well as my parents and my EX husband) today threatening to serve me with criminal charges and terminate my nursing license that I RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER COLLEGE 14 YEARS AGO!  I'm actually paying off my settlement debt and still being threatened?  The guy that called said he was looking at my credit report and I filed bankruptcy on this loan which is TOTALLY false. Some Cartwright Attorneys office is supposed to call me back in the am.  The twit that called me was named Mr.Campbell and claimed to be a law clerk.  Maddox, the female atty handling my case (supposedly) was unavailabe of course.  This is a scam and illegal.  Call your local District Attorney.  I am.

why they keep calling here.