Woman wins $83 million in lawsuit against debt collector

Woman wins $83 million in lawsuit against Bogus “debt collector”

A debt collection agency has been ordered to pay $83 million to a Missouri woman after a jury decided that the agency ‘maliciously prosecuted’ her to collect a debt she did not owe.

Maria Guadalupe Mejia, 51, won her case against Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, one of the largest debt buyers in the U.S., after the company mistakenly sued Mejia for a credit card debt of $1,000 belonging to a man with a similar sounding name, according to  KCUR.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Joel P. Fahnestock struck down the debt collector’s pleadings after it failed to hand over information in the case.

The full damages, determined by the jury after five days of hearing evidence, dealt a $250,000 fine for violating the Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and punitive damages of $82,990,000 for the malicious prosecution of Mejia.

“This company has gained a reputation for take no prisoners, ‘If you mess with us we’re going to take you all the way, you’re going to have to spend a lot of money on this litigation, you’re going to have to go all the way to trial,'” said one of Mejia lawyers, Gina Chiala, according to KCUR. “And so, among consumer lawyers, they are known to be very aggressive in litigation and to not stop; even when they’re wrong, they’re just not going to stop.”

Michael McKeon, a spokesperson for Portfolio Recovery Associates, called the verdict “outlandish” and said it “defied all common sense.” McKeon said the company will file motions to dismiss the award to Mejia, believing it to be of an “inappropriate” size.

The debt collector added that if the verdict is not reduced, it “could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and/or operations.”

Mejia has worked for 15 years at a dry cleaner’s shop before it recently closed, leaving her unemployed. She said she was terrified when the company filed a lawsuit against her, despite having argued they had the wrong person.

The company claims to have dropped the lawsuit against Mejia for the credit card debt when it realized it had made a mistake, though it did so after Chiala’s law firm, Slough Connealy Irwin & Madden, had already filed the countersuit against Portfolio Recovery Associates.

Mejia reportedly broke down in tears when the jury read its verdict. In a written statement, Mejia commented on the case:

“On February 6, 2013, my husband came to my place of employment and handed me the lawsuit Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC had served him with at our home. They wanted me to pay them over $1,000. I did not owe this company any money. My husband and I were already struggling just to keep our children fed and the lights on. The lawsuit terrified me. I feared they would take my house and I feared they would arrest me. I was very shocked that they sued me for one year and three months even though I never had the credit card. And after they dismissed the case, they said they might sue me again.

“I am so thankful to the jury for giving me and my family justice. This should not happen to anyone and I hope the jury’s verdict will stop Portfolio from doing this to others. I am grateful that my name is totally cleared and my family and I can move on.”

PRA Group, Inc., which owns The Portfolio Recovery Associates, reported its 2014 total revenues of nearly $881 million and net income of $176.5 million. The punitive award to Mejia amounts to nearly half of the 2014 net income figure.

Leave your vote

More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish "the People"

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish “the People”

A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debt discharge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!