# Ellis Mora — Counterclaim Computation and Litigation Advice

## 1. Ownership / the defense to the affirmative claim

Under Rule 1, Ledger Crown must prove the chain of assignments **identifying Ellis's account**. It has produced only a bill of sale for "a portfolio of charged-off accounts" with:

- no schedule of accounts,
- no account number,
- no custodian or business-records affidavit linking Ellis to the portfolio.

That is expressly "insufficient by itself." Ledger Crown therefore has no admissible proof of standing/ownership, and its prima facie case fails as a matter of law.

**Independent amount defect:** even if ownership were proved, the last original-creditor statement shows **$3,200**. The $480 add-on is unauthorized by any contract or supplied law. So the maximum provable debt is $3,200, and the pleaded $3,680 is overstated by $480.

**Conclusion:** the complaint is subject to dismissal (or defense judgment) on ownership; alternatively, recovery is capped at $3,200 and the $480 is stricken.

## 2. Validation-notice violation (Rule 2)

The January 2 letter was the initial communication. It named Ledger Crown as current creditor but **omitted the original creditor** and **gave no address for the 30-day dispute**. Two content defects, but the penalty is **per collection matter**, not per omission.

**$1,000**

## 3. Post-dispute collection acts (Rule 3)

Written dispute delivered January 13; verification not mailed until February 20. Collection had to cease in that window. Acts during the prohibited period:

| # | Date | Act |
|---|------|-----|
| 1 | Jan 15 | call |
| 2 | Jan 22 | call |
| 3 | Jan 25 | letter |
| 4 | Feb 3 | call |
| 5 | Feb 10 | filing the complaint |

5 × $750 = $3,750, **capped at $3,000**.

**$3,000** (the Feb 10 filing is a collection act; filing suit during the cease period is itself a violation, independent of the pleading's amount)

## 4. False-amount / unlawful-threat communications (Rule 4)

Communications stating the unauthorized $3,680:

1. January 2 letter (also contains the "immediate suit" threat — but multiple false statements in one communication count **once**)
2. January 25 letter
3. February 10 complaint

3 × $1,500 = $4,500, **cap $4,500** — exactly at the cap.

**$4,500**

## 5. Post-cease calls (Rule 5)

Cease-call request confirmed delivered January 13. Later calls **to Ellis**: Jan 15, Jan 22, Feb 3 = 3 calls.

3 × $500 = $1,500 (below the $2,000 cap).

**$1,500**

*(Note: the Jan 18 and Jan 29 third-party calls are charged under Rule 6, not Rule 5, because Rule 5 addresses calls to the consumer after her cease request. If a court treated the Jan 18 employer call as a "later call," the figure would rise to $2,000 — the cap — adding $500. I would plead the conservative $1,500 and argue the alternative.)*

## 6. Third-party disclosures (Rule 6)

- **Jan 18 voicemail to payroll supervisor:** identified Ledger Crown and stated the call concerned Ellis's unpaid account — a disclosure by definition.
- **Jan 29 statement to sister:** "owes us thousands and will be sued" — a disclosure to a relative.

2 × $2,000 = **$4,000**

Rule 7 confirms these stack with Rules 3–5 even though the same calls also violated the cease and cease-collection rules.

## 7. Actual damages (Rule 8)

Documented lost wages caused by the unlawful employer disclosure: **$1,200**. No other actual loss is supported, so no more is claimed.

## 8. Exact total counterclaim (before fees)

| Rule | Basis | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Defective validation notice | $1,000 |
| 3 | 5 post-dispute acts, capped | $3,000 |
| 4 | 3 false-amount communications, at cap | $4,500 |
| 5 | 3 post-cease calls | $1,500 |
| 6 | 2 third-party disclosures | $4,000 |
| 8 | Lost wages | $1,200 |
| **Total** | | **$15,200** |

Plus attorney fees to Ellis as prevailing consumer (Rule 8), which are additional and not part of the $15,200.

## 9. Setoff and net position

Rule 9: the counterclaim sets off against a **proven** debt only, and winning the counterclaim does **not** validate ownership or the amount.

- **If Ledger Crown proves nothing (expected outcome):** debt claim dismissed; Ellis recovers **$15,200 + fees**.
- **If Ledger Crown cures proof of ownership but not the $480:** debt = $3,200; setoff leaves Ellis a net affirmative recovery of **$12,000 + fees**.
- **Worst realistic case for Ellis** (full $3,680 somehow authorized — unsupported here): net **$11,520 + fees**.

In every scenario Ellis is a net creditor. There is no scenario in the supplied facts where Ellis owes money.

## 10. Recommended litigation posture

1. **Do not pay.** Payment is unnecessary and would concede an unproven, overstated debt.
2. **Answer with a general denial plus the ownership defense**, and plead the counterclaim (Rules 2–6, actual damages, fees) as an affirmative claim, not merely as recoupment — the counterclaim exceeds the debt, so Ellis needs affirmative-recovery posture, not just a defense.
3. **Move for summary judgment / judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint** for failure of proof of ownership: the portfolio bill of sale without a schedule, account number, or affidavit is insufficient as a matter of law. Ask that dismissal be **with prejudice** and that the $480 be addressed on the record.
4. **Move for partial summary judgment on the counterclaim** where the facts are documentary and essentially undisputed: the January 2 letter's face (Rule 2), the confirmed January 13 delivery plus the dated calls/letter/complaint (Rules 3 and 5), the three $3,680 communications (Rule 4), and the two disclosures (Rule 6). Liability on these is provable from Ledger Crown's own documents and the delivery confirmation.
5. **Discovery targets:** the account schedule and any assignment affidavit; the derivation of the $480; call logs from Jan 13–Feb 20; the voicemail recording/retention; the date verification was actually mailed; and any prior consumer complaints.
6. **Settlement:** any resolution must include (a) dismissal of the collection action with prejudice, (b) an affirmative payment to Ellis, and (c) fees. Reservation value should sit near the low end of the $11,520–$15,200 band plus fees, discounted only for collection risk against Ledger Crown, not for merits risk. Do not accept a "walk-away" or mutual-release-with-no-payment deal — that surrenders roughly $12,000–$15,000 of quantified statutory and actual damages.
7. **Demand a dismissal, not a dismissal-in-exchange-for-waiver.** If Ledger Crown voluntarily dismisses to escape the counterclaim, the counterclaim must be preserved and prosecuted; confirm it survives dismissal of the main claim.
8. **Preserve the fee claim** with contemporaneous time records from intake forward, and flag the Rule 5 alternative theory (+$500) and the possibility that additional post-dispute acts surface in call logs — although Rules 3 and 4 are already at their caps, so new acts of those types add no value and should not drive discovery cost.