ST. LOUIS — A class-action has been filed against a law firm that handles debt-collection cases on behalf of the Housing Authority of St. Louis County alleging the firm made false and misleading statements to renters on public assistance.
Chesterfield attorney Ronald Eisenberg filed the lawsuit last month against the Truitt Law Firm LLC in St. Louis. The legal action seeks relief for “unlawful, abusive, unfair and deceptive debt-collection practices” that attorney Shira Truitt is accused of engaging in, violating the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
“The big thing is to get this to stop, and we can seek either actual damages or statutory damages,” Eisenberg told the St. Louis Record. “The people getting victimized by this are very poor people and often rather unsophisticated.”
Chesterfield attorney Ronald Eisenberg
The cases of two renters, Dana Knight and Kenya Terry, are outlined in the lawsuit, which was filed in the 21st Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis County. The Truitt Law Firm filed petitions for rent and possession against them earlier this year, alleging they owed back rent and other fees.
“In rent and possession, if you show up at court and tender the amount due, rent and applicable attorney fees, court costs and so forth, then you’re allowed to remain (in the rental),” Eisenberg said.
In these two cases, however, Knight and Terry represented themselves in court and obtained judgments against the landlord. An associate circuit court judge affirmed in July that Knight and Terry had previously met their rent obligations and did not owe any money to the Housing Authority.
Statements attached to the original petitions by The Truitt Law Firm implied that unless Knight and Terry paid immediately, a judgment against them was inevitable, Eisenberg said.
“In order to avoid judgment for rent and possession from being taken against you, you must immediately tender the rent, late charges, court costs and attorney’s fees set forth above,” the statement from The Truitt Law Firm said. “Should you fail to remit same, a judgment will be rendered against you, and your belongings will be removed from the premises by the Sheriff.”
This conflicts with a subsequent part of the statement saying that if the renters dispute any portion of the claim, they should notify the law firm within 30 days, according to the lawsuit.
In addition, the Housing Authority did not quantify things such as court costs and attorney fees, making it impossible for a tenant to comply with the demand to immediately pay those costs to avoid a court judgment, according to the lawsuit.
“This was not necessary, and it was confusing,” Eisenberg said.
The attorney, who works for Schultz & Associates LLP, said he researched Missouri court records for similar actions taken by The Truitt Law Firm and found at least 40 such cases.
“There’s no magic number for a class action …” Eisenberg said. “But 40 – from the attorney perspective – is a safe number.”
He has filed more than 100 class actions, but this is the first one involving the federal debt statute, Eisenberg said.
“There are not a lot of class actions filed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,” he said.
Neither The Truitt Law Firm nor the Housing Authority of St. Louis County responded to requests from the Record for comment.
The statements from The Truitt Law Firm were especially upsetting to Knight, according to the class-action lawsuit, because she has a young daughter with health issues living with her. The health problems include traumatic glaucoma, cervical cancer and partial loss of a kidney, the lawsuit says.
Meanwhile, Terry recently received another communication from the Housing Authority alleging she still owed back rent, despite the previous court judgment affirming she paid in full.
“She gets an invoice from the Housing Authority that said that she had a past-due balance of $4,996.55,” Eisenberg said, adding that he responded by sending a letter to the authority reiterating the previous judgment.
Terry was particularly anxious at the thought of losing her rental home because she previously resided at a homeless shelter, Eisenberg said.
Certain initial information needs to be included to the person who allegedly owes money under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, he said. Eisenberg described this initial information as similar to a Miranda warning, and a court pleading does not count as an initial communication to a renter in this type of debt-collection process, he said.