Messerli & Kramer Class Action Lawsuits: Letters, Interest, Time-Barred Debt

Messerli & Kramer, a Minneapolis-based collections firm, has been named in a series of class action lawsuits accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) through misleading collection letters, improper disclosures, attempts to collect debts past the statute of limitations, and improperly calculated interest. The cases span federal courts in Minnesota and Wisconsin, with at least one producing a court-approved class settlement and others producing appellate rulings against the firm.

Who Messerli & Kramer Is

Messerli & Kramer was founded in 1965 and runs its collections division out of Plymouth, Minnesota, with additional offices in St. Paul, Omaha, Bismarck, and Glendale, Wisconsin.¹ The firm represents creditors trying to recover money owed to them and, by its own account, does not own the debts it collects. It says it prefers to set up voluntary repayment plans before pursuing legal enforcement.² That creditor-side role is what has put the firm’s letters and lawsuits in front of federal judges deciding whether its practices comply with the FDCPA.

Lawsuits Over Misleading Collection Letters

The most common allegation against Messerli & Kramer is that its initial collection letters either obscured or failed to disclose rights the FDCPA requires collectors to communicate clearly.

Lehmeyer v. Messerli & Kramer (D. Minn., 2016)

This is the clearest example of a case that reached a final class resolution. Lehmeyer alleged the firm violated Section 1692g(a)(4) of the FDCPA by failing to include proper dispute-and-verification disclosures in initial collection letters sent on behalf of Bank of America. The settlement class covered Minnesota consumers who received a specific form letter between May 2014 and May 2015 that was not returned as undeliverable. A federal court in Minnesota granted final approval in August 2016, and class members received equal shares of a common fund without having to file a claim.³ The total settlement amount was not disclosed in available records.

Wenig v. Messerli & Kramer (D. Minn., 2013)

A federal judge in Minnesota found that Messerli & Kramer violated the FDCPA on two separate grounds in Wenig. First, the court held that the firm’s initial collection letter failed to clearly tell the consumer that a dispute had to be in writing within 30 days to trigger verification, so an unsophisticated consumer could believe the right had no time limit. Second, a follow-up letter marked “FINAL NOTICE” demanded “immediate” contact and threatened legal action while the 30-day dispute window was still open, overshadowing the consumer’s validation rights. The court granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability but denied class certification, finding the proposed class had been “gerrymandered” to evade statutory damages caps and that individual issues about when letters arrived made class treatment impractical.⁴

Bauer v. Messerli & Kramer (E.D. Wis., 2019)

Jossette Bauer sued the firm and Jefferson Capital Systems in January 2019, alleging that collection letters on a Comenity Bank credit card debt failed to disclose that the balance was accruing interest. Because the amount changed between letters without explanation, Bauer argued, an unsophisticated consumer would be confused about what was actually owed. A second letter allegedly used an incorrect account number. The complaint cited FDCPA provisions barring false representations about a debt’s character and amount, deceptive collection means, and failure to clearly state the amount owed and the creditor’s name.⁵ Available records cover only the filing and do not indicate a final outcome.

An earlier Wisconsin case, Wanty v. Messerli Kramer (E.D. Wis., 2006), alleged the firm used a mechanically reproduced attorney signature on collection letters to create the false impression that the attorney had personally reviewed the accounts. The court granted class certification in September 2006.⁶

Lawsuits Over Improperly Calculated Interest

Coyne v. Messerli & Kramer (8th Cir., 2018)

David Coyne challenged a February 2016 collection letter from the firm demanding $17,230.29 on a credit card debt owed to Midland Funding and Midland Credit Management. The letter broke the figure down as a $13,205.30 principal, $3,871.39 in interest at 6 percent, and $153.60 in costs. Coyne argued that the “principal” already included contractual interest, so the firm was effectively charging interest on interest in violation of Minnesota law.⁷

A district court dismissed the case, finding the statements were not materially false. In July 2018, the Eighth Circuit reversed and held Coyne had “plausibly alleged” an FDCPA violation, reasoning that trying to collect an amount not authorized by state law is a material violation of the statute. The case was sent back for further proceedings.⁷

Lawsuits Over Time-Barred Debt

Joan N. v. LVNV Funding and Messerli & Kramer (2014)

A Wisconsin woman identified as “Joan N.” sued LVNV Funding and Messerli & Kramer, alleging they tried to collect a Citibank personal loan after Wisconsin’s six-year statute of limitations had run. She said she took out the loan before June 2008 and never made a payment. The firm filed suit in June 2014, citing a payment it said had been made in August 2008. Joan N. denied making the payment and said the recorded transaction was actually a credit applied by the creditor itself.⁸ No final outcome was reported in available records.

Under the FDCPA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Regulation F, suing or threatening to sue on a time-barred debt is prohibited on a strict liability basis, meaning the collector need not have known the debt was expired for the violation to stand.⁹ The CFPB notes that most states set statutes of limitations between three and six years for consumer debt.¹⁰

Lawsuits Over Disclosure of Consumer Information

Kleczewski v. Messerli & Kramer (E.D. Wis., 2018)

Matthew Kleczewski’s proposed class action, filed in March 2018, took a different angle. He claimed the firm “knowingly and unnecessarily” published sensitive consumer information, including twelve months of credit score data, as attachments to affidavits in state court collection cases in Wisconsin. The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for disclosing consumer reports without a permissible purpose and the FDCPA for abusive collection practices, and it added a negligent supervision claim arguing that junior attorneys at the firm were not properly overseen and that information redacted in other filings was left exposed in his case. The complaint noted the firm had filed more than 50 state court collection actions in Wisconsin in the two years before the suit.¹¹

What To Do if Messerli & Kramer Contacts or Sues You

If you have been served with a collection lawsuit in Minnesota, where most of the firm’s collection work originates, you have 21 days to file a written answer. Calling the firm does not count as a response and does not stop the clock. Missing the deadline lets the firm obtain a default judgment without a hearing.²

Common defenses in collection suits include the statute of limitations, unauthorized use or fraud on the underlying account, prior payment or settlement, and, in cases involving debt buyers, a challenge to whether the collector can prove it owns the debt. The Federal Trade Commission says that responding to a collection lawsuit forces the collector to prove the debt is owed, the amount is accurate, and it has the legal right to sue for that specific debt.¹²

If a judgment has already been entered against you and you are facing wage or bank garnishment, standard options include claiming an exemption, negotiating a settlement, seeking to vacate the judgment, or filing for bankruptcy. The firm’s payment portal says payment plans may be available depending on the legal status of the account and suggests contacting the firm early to discuss voluntary arrangements.²

If you believe the firm has violated the FDCPA, you can file complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the FTC, or your state attorney general. You have one year from the date of the violation to file a private FDCPA lawsuit in state or federal court.¹²

1
Best Lawyers. Messerli Kramer
2
MK Bill Pay. Messerli & Kramer Bill Pay
3
GDR Law Firm. Lehmeyer v. Messerli & Kramer FDCPA
4
GovInfo. Wenig v. Messerli & Kramer, Case No. 11-CV-3547
5
ClassAction.org. Bauer v. Messerli and Kramer PA et al.
6
CaseMine. Wanty v. Messerli Kramer P.A.
7
FindLaw. Coyne v. Messerli & Kramer P.A.
8
Top Class Actions. Woman Claims Debt Collectors Waited Too Long
9
Federal Register. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Regulation F Time-Barred Debt
10
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Can Debt Collectors Collect a Debt Thats Several Years Old
11
ClassAction.org. Kleczewski v. Messerli and Kramer PA et al.
12
Federal Trade Commission. What To Do if a Debt Collector Sues You