ST. LOUIS – St. Louis residents have filed a lawsuit against a woman and her attorneys for attempting to collect a debt for legal fees in an ongoing lawsuit.
Dr. Whitney Ross and Dr. Ian Ross filed the lawsuit in federal court against Rachel Siegert and Jenkins & Kling alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to court documents, on April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase a St. Louis property from Siegert. The plaintiffs assert that the contract contained a provision that states that in the event of litigation between the parties, "the prevailing party shall recover, in addition to damages or equitable relief, the cost of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees.”
The plaintiffs claim that at the time of purchase, Siegert failed to disclose various unfixable defects of the property, including mold and have declared the property a "total loss." The plaintiffs state that on May 15, 2023, they filed a lawsuit in the circuit court against Siegert to recoup damages. The plaintiffs allege that despite the ongoing lawsuit, Siegert's counsel, Jenkins & Kling, sent them a letter on July 17, 2023, to attempt collection of a debt of $1,777.50 for Siegert's legal fees expended in the ongoing lawsuit. The letter stated that payment of the debt was due by August 21, 2023 and that costs would continue to accrue because of the ongoing lawsuit.
According to the complaint, as the plaintiff's lawsuit is still ongoing and the circuit court has yet to determine a "prevailing party," they do not owe the defendants any debt. The complaint also emphasizes that, as a law firm specializing in debt collection, Jenkins & Kling should also be aware of this fact, making their conduct even more egregious. Despite the ongoing nature of the underlying litigation, the defendants persisted in their debt collection efforts, prompting the plaintiffs to request a Temporary Restraining Order. The circuit court denied the motion but ordered the defendants to cease sending the plaintiffs further collection letters.
The plaintiffs claim the defendants' attempts to collect the debt violated the FDCPA, citing specific sections of the act that prohibit harassment, oppression, and abuse in debt collection. They claim that the defendants' actions were malicious and intentionally designed to cause distress.
The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment for damages plus court costs, attorney fees and other relief. They are being represented by William R. Wurm of Amundsen Davis in St. Louis.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, St. Louis case number 4:23-cv-01295