Tucker Albin Lawsuit: Minnesota Penalty, Jordan, and Rosenquist

Lawsuits and regulatory actions involving Tucker Albin & Associates include a $500,000 Minnesota state penalty in 2015 for harassment and caller ID spoofing, a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case in the Eastern District of New York that survived summary judgment on damages, a 2025 FDCPA suit in the Northern District of Texas that ended in a stipulated dismissal, and a continuing stream of Better Business Bureau complaints describing similar conduct. The Richardson, Texas company collects business-to-business debts, and its legal history centers on how it pursues those debts rather than on the underlying accounts.

The $500,000 Minnesota Penalty

In July 2015, the Minnesota Department of Commerce issued a consent order against Tucker Albin after an investigation identified more than 100 victimized businesses in the state, among them restaurants, construction companies, farmers, and body shops. Regulators described the conduct as “deliberate, repeated misconduct.”¹

The investigation found that collectors were trained to:

Spoof caller ID to display numbers familiar to the debtor rather than the company’s Texas number. Farmers might see a local farmer’s market number; firefighters might see a number resembling city hall.¹
Pose as private investigators, though the company held no private investigator licenses in Minnesota.²
Threaten actions the company had no authority to take, including freezing business assets, revoking business licenses, and reporting debtors to the IRS.²
Threaten to hire people to stand in front of debtors’ businesses with signs stating the debts were unpaid.¹
Contact businesses connected to a debtor, such as greenhouses and livestock auction houses, with questions calculated to embarrass and pressure the debtor.²

The $500,000 civil penalty was the largest the Minnesota Commerce Department had ever imposed on a debt collector at the time.¹ Under the consent order, $130,000 was due immediately, followed by $10,000 monthly for one year, with an additional $250,000 stayed for two years and payable in full if the company violated the order.³ Tucker Albin was also required to rewrite its collection manual, retrain employees, implement a compliance monitoring program, and submit quarterly reports to Minnesota regulators for a year.²

Jordan v. Tucker Albin in the Eastern District of New York

In 2013, Edward and Kelly Jordan sued Tucker Albin and several co-defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over a dispute involving unpaid home repair costs after Hurricane Sandy. A mechanic’s lien had been filed against their Islip, New York home, and the Jordans alleged Tucker Albin used the lien to threaten them with foreclosure. They brought claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York state law.⁴

In May 2017, Judge Joan M. Azrack denied Tucker Albin’s motion for summary judgment on damages, finding genuine issues of material fact on emotional distress and other actual damages recoverable under the FDCPA. The court rejected the defense argument that liability should be capped at the $1,000 statutory maximum.⁵ The court also found that defendant Kenny Oltmanns, who operated under the alias Jim Wilson, qualified as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA and could be held jointly and severally liable for violations Tucker Albin had conceded.⁶

Not everything survived. The court dismissed the Jordans’ claims for conversion, defamation, abuse of process, and violations of New York General Business Law § 349.⁵ Available court records do not show whether the remaining FDCPA claims against Tucker Albin and Oltmanns went to trial or settled.

Rosenquist v. Tucker Albin in the Northern District of Texas

Hayden A. Rosenquist filed suit against Tucker Albin in 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging FDCPA violations tied to a debt allegedly owed to a third-party creditor called Oak Grove Rental. According to the complaint, Tucker Albin called multiple times in a single day, continued contacting Rosenquist after he asked them to stop, and reached out to third parties unconnected to the debt, including a former landlord.⁷

The case, before Judge Brantley Starr, was terminated on September 25, 2025, when the parties filed an agreed stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, indicating the dispute was resolved between the parties.⁸

Tucker Albin as Plaintiff

Tucker Albin also brings its own suits. In 2024, the company filed Tucker Albin & Associates, Inc. v. Blue Star Roofing, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The matter was classified as a contract dispute and reached federal court through a diversity-based notice of removal from state court. Details about the specific claims and outcome were not available in the reviewed records.⁹ A business that ignores Tucker Albin’s collection attempts should expect the possibility of a civil suit for the underlying debt in addition to continued collection contact.

Complaints That Echo the Enforcement Action

The Better Business Bureau profile for Tucker Albin shows 61 complaints over the past three years, with 22 closed in the most recent 12-month period. The company is not BBB accredited. Of the 61 complaints, 35 involved billing issues and 16 concerned customer service. Only 8 were marked “resolved,” while the remaining 53 were “answered.”¹⁰

The complaint patterns track the conduct Minnesota regulators identified a decade earlier. Complainants describe threatening voicemails, emails, and social media messages; threats of dispatching private investigators or seizing personal assets for business debts; being told to “pay the debt or tell it to the judge”; being pursued for debts they say they do not owe; and having sensitive financial information shared with unauthorized third parties.¹⁰

A company representative named Mark Stevens appears repeatedly in 2024 and 2025 complaints. Multiple individuals report contacts to family members and employers, collection messages sent through Instagram, and demands tied to dissolved businesses or unrelated parties. In one January 2025 complaint, a debtor alleged Stevens attempted to collect over $15,000 in connection with a business lease after the business had been legally dissolved, and improperly disclosed financial details by copying an unauthorized third party on collection emails.¹¹

Commercial Versus Consumer Collection

Tucker Albin identifies itself as a commercial collection agency focused on business-to-business debts.¹² That distinction has legal consequences. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act primarily protects individual consumers, so business owners pursued for business debts often cannot rely on it directly. The Minnesota case shows the other side of that line: commercial collectors remain subject to state regulatory oversight, federal statutes such as the Truth in Caller ID Act, and state consumer protection laws that reach deceptive practices regardless of whether the debt is personal or commercial.² Individual consumers pursued by Tucker Albin, as in the Jordan and Rosenquist cases, can still bring FDCPA claims where the debt is personal in nature.

If you are being contacted by Tucker Albin, the enforcement record and complaint history point to a few practical checks. Note the caller ID and compare it against any number the company publishes; the Minnesota order specifically addressed spoofing. Ask any collector who claims to be a private investigator for a license number and the licensing state. Keep copies of voicemails, emails, and social media messages, particularly any that threaten actions a collector cannot legally take. If the debt is a personal consumer debt, FDCPA remedies are available; if it is a business debt, state attorney general offices and state commerce departments remain the primary avenue, as Minnesota’s action demonstrated.

1
American Banker. Minnesota Fines Collection Agency for Alleged Harassment
2
insideARM. Texas-Based Commercial Debt Collector Faces Enforcement Action
3
Detroit Lakes Online. State Commerce Dept. Hits Texas Debt Collector With $500K Fine for Illegal Acts
4
Justia. Jordan et al v. Tucker Albin and Associates, Incorporated et al, Document 177
5
CaseMine. Jordan v. Tucker, Albin and Associates, Inc.
6
GovInfo. Jordan et al v. Tucker Albin and Associates, Inc. et al, Memorandum and Order
7
UniCourt. Rosenquist v. Tucker Albin and Associates Inc.
8
PACER Monitor. Rosenquist v. Tucker Albin and Associates Inc.
9
GovInfo. Tucker Albin and Associates, Inc. v. Blue Star Roofing, Inc.
10
Better Business Bureau. Tucker, Albin and Associates, Inc. – Complaints
11
Tucker Albin Disputes. Tucker Albin Disputes
12
Tucker Albin & Associates. Tucker Albin and Associates