Company Response
10/29/2021
I am an attorney for AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc (ARMI). I write in response to the concerns expressed recently to your office by Ms. Taylor. I appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of ARMI.
On January 9, 2018, an account was referred to ARMI, for attempted collection, regarding an unpaid obligation for services rendered, owed by Ms. Taylor. ARMI's collection efforts were unsuccessful, and ARMI commenced a lawsuit against Ms. Taylor in Pierce County District Court. Ms. Taylor was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on March 23, 2021. In each of the three months after Ms. Taylor was served with ARMI's complaint, Ms. Taylor made a payment, making altogether a total of three payments. Each one of the three payments was made in the amount of $68.67, as is indicated in the complaint description that Ms. Taylor filed with your office.
AMRI offered to agree to, and sent to Ms. Taylor for her review and signature, a proposed stipulation for judgment and installment payments. Ms. Taylor never returned this document to ARMI, and never answered the complaint. Subsequently, ARMI scheduled a motion for default judgment, and judgment was entered against Ms. Taylor, in open court, on July 22, 2021. Later that same month, Ms. Taylor did make an additional payment of $68.67.
Because Ms. Taylor made no payment in August of 2021, AMRI commenced a garnishment proceeding, which was filed with the court on September 27, 2021. Thereafter, Ms. Taylor made two more monthly payments. Each of those two payments was made in the amount of $50.00, as is indicated in the complaint description that Ms. Taylor filed with your office.
ARMI is unaware of the specific nature of the difficulties ostensibly encountered by Ms. Taylor with respect to the payment portal; the portal is not designed to limit the amount of payments that can be tendered by a user.
ARMI understand that difficult situations may arise for any person in dealing with the issues which accompany a garnishment proceeding. Nevertheless, because a garnishment proceeding is in derogation of the common law, the requirements which the law imposes on all parties involved must be strictly construed and applied. ARMI does not agree that the single garnishment proceeding in this matter was in any way improper, and ARMI rejects entirely Ms. Taylor's various allegations of dishonesty, theft and unprofessionalism. ARMI's actions in this matter were neither misleading nor deceptive. ARMI has an obligation to act under the law as the statutory referee of a creditor's referral for collection, and did so here. ARMI's actions in this matter were not improper.
Should a balance still remain owing after the current garnishment proceeding, ARMI would certainly be willing to discuss possible options for Ms. Taylor to consider in order to satisfy any such remaining balance, if Ms. Taylor wishes to do so.
Read More