I had received the initial letter from Mann Bracken LLP informing me that my account had been listed with them for collection. I sent them a DV letter, CMRR, and heard absolutely nothing back from them.

Today, (about 90 days later) I received a "summons" from Mann Bracken LLP, delivered by a police officer. The document I received was questionable at best to being a valid court summons. My reason for that are as follows...

1. They are listing Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. as the Plaintiff. Citibank discharged this debt in 2007 after 180 days of delinquency. Therefore, Citibank could not be a valid Plaintiff in this case since they no longer own the debt.

2. Nowhere on the documents does it provide contact information for the court or information on filing a response. There is no evidence that this document came from the State of Georgia (no state seal, no stamp of any kind, etc.) There is a hand-written case number on all of the documents.

3. At the bottom of all 3 documents is the following "This is communication from a debt collector. The debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose."

4. I was never asked to sign anything saying that I was served the documents.

So I present the following questions to the community:

- Is this a valid summons?

- Is this a common (illegal) practice among Man Bracken?

- Has Mann Bracken LLP really filed suit?

- How can I find out if they filed suit?

- How can I confirm the validity of these documents?

- If they did file suit, how should I respond?

- Was I served improperly?

My research about Mann Bracken has led to some pretty unsettling discoveries about them. They don't appear to play by the rules, and I'll need all of the help I can get in dealing with these scumbags. :o

1. Define discharged? Unless you mean discharged as part of a bankruptcy, then the debt is still collectible. How do you know Citibank sold it?

2. Unless the "summons" lists a court and docket # its probably not a valid summons. And police officers generally do not serve summonses.

However, none of this means that they are not legally entitled to collect the debt.

So I would be more inclined to send them a certified letter referencing the case number and asking for an explanation.

1. Define discharged? Unless you mean discharged as part of a bankruptcy, then the debt is still collectible. How do you know Citibank sold it?

2. Unless the "summons" lists a court and docket # its probably not a valid summons. And police officers generally do not serve summonses.

However, none of this means that they are not legally entitled to collect the debt.

So I would be more inclined to send them a certified letter referencing the case number and asking for an explanation.

Thanks Scott,

I know that Citibank sold the debt because they posted on my credit report that they wrote it off. Mann Bracken LLP is the 4th collection agency to get this debt.

The "summons" does not list a court or docket number.

It was a deputy that delivered the paperwork.

Is this a fraudulent method of debt collection? It seems that a practice like this would be highly illegal...

Writing off the debt does not mean they still don't own it. Even if they don't own it, the paperowrk may indicate them to identify the debt.

What do you mean by deputy? Was it a sheriff's deputy? If so, sheriffs are often not law enforcement people, but appointed to do things like process service.

While this appears to be a questionable method of collection its probably just on the side of legal.

Yes write off does not mean they sold it, that is only an accounting term as to the tax status of that debt.

Normally this "summons" is the first legal filing, giving you the chance to respond to the court as to your defense. The court address is not on any of my legal filings, merely the name of the court and the county of the court.
So not having a street address of the court is almost normal in all of the filings I have ever done.

I will argue with Scott over deputies not being law enforcement, a deputy is a sworn officer, but they do use non sworn, non uniform people to serve often.

Sounds like a valid filing and service to me.

Thanks for the answers thus far, I still have much to learn.

If Citibank does indeed still own the debt, should/could I deal directly with them?

Why do the papers have the disclaimer "This is communication from a debt collector" if these are supposed to be court documents?

How could I find out if they really did file suit?

Would the fact that they never validated the debt come into play in court?


Thanks again everyone, I appreciate your time and energy.

Yes, if the did not validate the debt that is a good defense.

There are others here with a great link to some things to ask or reply. But when in doubt treat it as a valid, or if you want, run down to your county courthouse where this should have been filed though?? And ask them about the validity of it. In fact you can even ask them to confirm who served it.

I'm going down to the courthouse tomorrow to confirm it's validity. The date of the document being filed is April 8, yet it took them until April 20 to deliver it? How many days do I have to file a response if this is indeed valid?