Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery, Inc. has been named as a defendant in more than 50 federal lawsuits alleging violations of consumer protection laws, and if you are researching a Lockhart Morris and Montgomery lawsuit because the firm is on your credit report, calling you, or has filed suit against you, federal law gives you specific tools to respond. The company, a Texas-based third-party debt collection agency, has been sued primarily under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), with additional claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).1Protection for Consumers. Lockhart Morris Montgomery Debt Collection Harassment
What LMM Has Been Sued For
The allegations across the federal cases follow a handful of recurring patterns. Plaintiffs have accused LMM of failing to send the written validation notice the FDCPA requires within five days of initial contact, misrepresenting debts, failing to properly identify the original creditor, and using improper collection tactics on the phone and in writing.1Protection for Consumers. Lockhart Morris Montgomery Debt Collection Harassment
Credit reporting complaints run alongside the FDCPA claims. Consumers have alleged that LMM reported inconsistent account statuses to credit bureaus, placed debts on credit reports without any prior written notice, and refused to produce original contracts or proof of the debt when asked. LMM’s BBB profile has logged 360 complaints over a recent three-year period, with 75 in the most recent twelve months.2Better Business Bureau. Lockhart Morris Montgomery Inc BBB Complaints
Notable Case Outcomes
The most consequential result came from a Texas state jury. In Shannon Whaley v. Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery, Inc., and John Hickman (No. DC-10-14604, 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County), a jury returned a unanimous verdict finding LMM and Hickman guilty of violating the FDCPA, the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. The verdict was reported in September 2012.3Law Firm Newswire. Dallas Texas Jury Unanimous Verdict Finds Lockhart Morris Montgomery Inc Guilty of Violating State and Federal Law
On the credit reporting side, Smith v. Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery, Inc. (1:24-cv-00060, S.D. Ohio) is instructive on what an FCRA claim against the firm looks like. Plaintiff Faye Smith alleged that LMM failed to remove a disputed medical debt from her credit report after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Experian notified the firm of the dispute. In a June 2024 ruling, the court dismissed her claim under Section 1681s-2(a), finding no private right of action there, but allowed her claim under Section 1681s-2(b) to proceed, holding she had alleged enough about LMM’s failure to investigate or remove the debt after receiving notice.4Midpage. Smith v. Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery, Inc.
Other filings show the range of conduct at issue. In Diggs v. Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery (N.D. Ill., 2017), the plaintiff alleged a February 2017 collection letter failed to identify the entity to which he owed money, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.5Legal Newsline. Lockhart Morris Montgomery Accused of Misrepresentation in Debt Collection In Jones v. Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery and John D. Hickman (E.D. Tex., 2011), the plaintiff alleged the defendants used an automatic dialing system to leave voicemails on his cell phone that failed to disclose the calls were an attempt to collect a debt, citing the FDCPA, the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and the TCPA.6Legal Newsline. Debt Collection Agency Sued for Failing to Disclose It Was Attempting to Collect Debt More recently, Karcher v. Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery (M.D. Fla., 2025) was filed in January 2025; in its answer, LMM asserted that it had sent a compliant “Model Validation Notice” under the FDCPA and Regulation F.7Justia. Karcher v. Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-67-MSS-PRL
Your Rights If LMM Contacts You
Start with debt validation. Under the FDCPA, a collector must provide written validation information — the creditor’s name, the amount owed, and instructions for disputing — either with the first contact or within five days of it.8Federal Trade Commission. Debt Collection FAQs If you send a written dispute within 30 days of that notice, the collector must pause all collection activity until it sends written verification.
If the debt looks wrong, dispute it directly with Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian, and send a validation demand to LMM at the same time. If the firm cannot validate the account, it is required to stop collecting and remove the trade line from your credit reports.1Protection for Consumers. Lockhart Morris Montgomery Debt Collection Harassment Send everything by certified mail so you have a paper trail.
The FDCPA also bans specific collector behavior: calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., using profane or threatening language, calling more than seven times in a seven-day period about a specific debt, contacting your workplace after being told to stop, and threatening legal action the collector cannot or does not intend to take.8Federal Trade Commission. Debt Collection FAQs You can sue the collector in state or federal court within one year and recover up to $1,000 in statutory damages plus attorney’s fees, without having to prove financial harm.
Text messages have their own rules. LMM has been reported to use shortcode 47327 for text-based collection. If you did not consent to those texts, you may have a TCPA claim, which carries statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per unauthorized message. Replying “STOP” to the shortcode should halt future texts.1Protection for Consumers. Lockhart Morris Montgomery Debt Collection Harassment
What to Do If LMM Sues You
Do not ignore the papers. Missing the deadline to file a written answer results in a default judgment, which opens the door to wage garnishment and other collection tools. Filing an answer preserves your defenses: challenging whether the debt is valid, whether the statute of limitations has expired, or whether LMM has standing to sue.9SoloSuit. Resolve Debt Lockhart Morris Montgomery Time-barred debts matter here: the FDCPA makes it illegal for a collector to sue or threaten to sue on a debt past the applicable statute of limitations, and you can raise that as an affirmative defense.8Federal Trade Commission. Debt Collection FAQs
Settlement is common. Opening offers in the range of 40 to 60 percent of the total debt are a typical starting point for negotiation. Get any agreement in writing and file it with the court so it is enforceable.9SoloSuit. Resolve Debt Lockhart Morris Montgomery
Regulatory Standing
One boundary worth noting: LMM does not appear on the Federal Trade Commission’s list of debt collectors permanently banned by federal court order.10Federal Trade Commission. Banned Debt Collectors List The Smith case referenced a CFPB investigation into a disputed medical debt collected by LMM, but no standalone CFPB enforcement action against the firm was identified in available records.4Midpage. Smith v. Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery, Inc. LMM remains an active collection agency, so an individual lawsuit or dispute is the practical route for a consumer with a claim, rather than reliance on a nationwide ban.