MCM Rep Told Me “You Have to Prove It” and Claimed the Court Handles Service
I’ve been disputing Midland Credit Management (“MCM”) for almost 20 months. Recently they filed a lawsuit against me (I have not been served yet).
I called the number listed on the Clerk of Courts website and requested consent to record the call since my state is a two-party consent state. The MCM representative agreed.
Originally, the biggest red flag from the call was the representative telling me:
“The court is responsible for service.”
The rep repeatedly made it sound like I needed to coordinate service directly with the Clerk, which concerned me because under my state’s procedure rules, the plaintiff is generally responsible for arranging service after the summons is issued.
But while reviewing the transcript again, I caught another statement that stood out even more. The representative told me:
“You have to prove it, sir. Otherwise, right now, we believe that that’s valid. So the lawsuit’s in place.”
That immediately reminded me of the CFPB Consent Orders involving Midland/Encore, specifically the sections discussing misleading consumers about the burden of proof and implying consumers must prove a debt is not theirs.
For context, I’ve documented disputes, validation requests, and inconsistencies for almost two years now. I also recently sent another certified letter documenting what I believe are additional violations and evidentiary defects that I may raise in affirmative defenses if I’m served.
I also filed a CFPB complaint regarding the misleading statements about service, and interestingly, MCM acknowledged the statement in its CFPB response.
At this point, I’m reviewing everything carefully and preparing my Answer proactively in case service happens.