The Arkansas Supreme Court recently affirmed a ruling by a Circuit Judge Robert McCallum in a Clark County case involving unlicensed debt collectors.

The Arkansas Supreme Court recently affirmed a ruling by a Circuit Judge Robert McCallum in a Clark County case involving unlicensed debt collectors.
The Supreme Court ruling upheld McCallum’s decision to grant class certification in the case which will now return to Clark County Circuit Court for trial.
The case began in 2013 when CACH, LLC, an debt collector not registered with the state of Arkansas, sued an Amity man over an alleged credit card debt. CACH claimed that it had purchased the credit card debt and was entitled to file suit to collect.
The defendant, William Echols, had previously paid the debt in full and filed a class-action counterclaim after learning that hundreds of other persons had also been tagged by lawsuits filed in CACH.
On Dec. 17, 2015, enter an order certifying the case as a class action. CAHC then appealed that ruling. In its opinion, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a class action was proper because the allegations against CAHC were all based on CACH’s routine debt-collection practices.
Even though CACH had filed lawsuits against residents in other cities and counties around the state, the Supreme Court held that it would be more efficient for one court to rule on the legality of CACH’s actions in a single class action proceeding.
Dan Turner and Todd Turner represented Echols and were appointed to serve as class counsel.
According to Dan Turner, dozens of CACH’s lawsuits were filed against Clark County residents, including other wrongful actions like the one filed against Echols.
According to the counterclaim, CACH was not a licensed debt collector and had not properly investigated the alleged debts before it started filing collection lawsuits.
Two years ago, following the filing of this lawsuit, the Arkansas General Assembly changed the debt-collection licensing laws by effectively allowing unlicensed companies to collect third-party debts without getting a license and to otherwise limit or eliminate their liability for filing improper collection actions.
Despite this new law, which the Turners believe is unconstitutional, the litigation against CACH will continue in Clark County Circuit Court.
Individuals who were sued by CACH are encouraged to contact Arnold, Batson, Turner and Turner about the case.