Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  12/26/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This company called me the last week of 2024 stating that I owed almost 10,000 for a vehicle I never owned in 2013. I told the guy Jim that I never owned that vehicle and I would never buy a vehicle from an llc. He yell at me and hung up. They are scammers attempting to get your information for debts that you never owed

  Business response

  12/30/2024

  Reimer Law takes all consumer concerns seriously.
  Reimer Law conducted a review of its calls to Ms. Edwards and found that at no time did the account representative raise his voice, hang up on her, or act in violation of the law. Throughout the only conversation with Ms. ******* the account representative attempted to advise her of the nature of the lawsuit and judgment. The call ended with Ms. ******* advising she was going to contact the court to dispute this matter.
  The firm’s debt collection matters are confidential and we are available to discuss matters further by phone, at ************* 
  

  Customer response

  12/30/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *******
  
  
  
  
   

• Initial Complaint

  09/20/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Reimer Law Co. is threatening me to garnish my paycheck due to unpaid city taxes from 2020 because i had gotten a notice from Regional Income Tax Agency regarding when there offices was closed during the pandemic lockdowns and they now coming after my paycheck and i need help please.

  Business response

  09/27/2024

  Mr. ******* was sued by RITA in 2023 in the S***** ******* Municipal Court for delinquent 2020 taxes. This occurred well after the COVID-19 pandemic, during which RITA remained operational. A judgment was granted on 12/20/2023 for the amount of $1,528.09.
  

  Prior to filing the lawsuit, RITA attempted to contact Mr. ******* by mail. The account was placed with our office for collection on 2/26/2024, and a debt validation letter was sent on 2/27/2024. The letter was not returned as undeliverable.
  Before proceeding with wage garnishment, a 15-day statutory notice was sent on 7/12/2024 to give Mr. ******* the opportunity to avoid garnishment. On 7/16/2024, he contacted our office and stated he would pay the balance in full via money order, promising to send the payment over the weekend and call to confirm by the following Wednesday.
  

  On 7/22/2024, he called again, and we agreed to cancel the garnishment for a payment of $325 by 7/26/2024, along with a payment plan of $400 per month starting on 8/16/2024. However, Mr. ******* failed to make any payments, and attempts to contact him by phone were unsuccessful. As a result, the wage garnishment was filed.
  

  The next contact from Mr. ******* came when his employer received the wage garnishment order on 9/20/2024.

• Initial Complaint

  02/03/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I am being harassed by an overzealous debt-collector, Karen C****** who works for this firm. I told Ms. C****** she should expect to receive my payment in the next day or two along with the current months payment (early). She asked me to provide the exact date of mailing. I told her I did not have that information in front of me at that moment and would have to follow up with it. She insisted I provided a date that very second and proceeded to talk to me in a very demeaning manner although I told her I did not have the date accessible. Doing one's job is one thing. Harassing consumers is another and unacceptable. I thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

  Business response

  02/08/2023

  Good evening, Ms. Angel.
  
  Thank you for notifying Reimer Law Co. regarding the complaint against the law firm. Please find below the response from Reimer Law Co. to the consumer’s complaint:
  
  On March 1, 2017, the City of East Cleveland filed a complaint in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas captioned, City of East Cleveland, Ohio v. Tiffany M. *****, case number: ************.  Judgment was subsequently granted by agreement of the parties, against Defendant for $5,374.00 with interest at 4% from the date of judgment. 
  Defendant defaulted on the agreed payment terms and the judgment was placed with Reimer Law Co. (“Reimer Law”) to pursue the collection of the remaining balance. On or about April 6, 2018, Ms. ***** agreed to make month payments beginning May 5, 2018, and continuing on the 5th of each month thereafter.  Ms. ***** failed to remit any payments as agreed.
  On April 1, 2021, Ms. ***** called Reimer Law and agreed to another monthly payment plan, beginning April 5, 2021, and continuing the 5th of each month thereafter.
  Defendant remitted sporadic payments between April 2021 and December 2022, short of the promised amount.  The last payment received was on December 13, 2022.  On February 2, 2023, Reimer Law called Ms. ***** to follow-up on her January 2023 payment.  Ms. ***** advised the January payment was placed in the mail but could not remember when the payment was made.  As of February 7, 2023, neither the January 2023 nor February 2023 payment has been received.
  Reimer Law Co. remains in full compliance with the law and federal regulations while pursuing the subject collection matter.

  Customer response

  02/08/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  Further, in my complaint, I did not argue about the debt or amount owing. My issue was and remains being harassed in the collection process, which is unprofessional and unacceptable. Therefore, the firms response is of no moment in that their overzealous and harassing tactics are the cause of complaint. Further, I have attached a FedEx tracking number which indicates the payment should have been delivered on 2/7/2023.

  I would like The Better Business Bureau and/or appropriate authorities to investigate the collection practices of this firm to include Karen C****** (debt collector) and the managing attorney. 

  
  Regards,
  
  Complainant 
  
  
  
  
   

  Business response

  02/21/2023

  Reimer Law reviewed the recording of the February 2, 2023, phone conversation between Reimer Law account representative and Ms. *****.  In addition, all collection notes were reviewed.  The representative was found to have been respectful and only contacted Ms. ***** when she failed to remit a monthly payment.  The account representative has repeatedly worked with Ms. ***** over the last two years to keep her payments current and avoid execution on the judgment.  The account representative’s behavior was professional and courteous.  

   

  During the last call, Ms. ***** was politely advised that her January payment was not received and she was in default of the agreed monthly payment.  Ms. ***** insisted she had sent the payment and that it should be at the firm.  Ms. ***** was asked when the payment was sent, as she agreed to make monthly payment no later than the 25^th of each month.  The representative calmly asked questions to ascertain if and when the payment was mailed. 

   

  Ms. ***** begins to get upset when told that she is only contacted when she defaults or misses a payment and that she is sending payment every 60 days rather than every month.

   

  Ms. ***** interrupted the account representative multiple times.  The representative remained calm and respectful when Mr. ***** accused her of harassment.

   

  At the time of the call, February 2, 2023, no payment had been received, yet Ms. ***** insisted she mailed a payment before the end of January.  On February 8, 2023 a payment of was received by Reimer Law, for the January and February payment plan payment.  

   

  A review of previous conversations yielded the same outcome.  When Ms. ***** was advised she was late or in default she would interrupt the account representative. Reimer Law’s investigation revealed that the law firm’s account representative’s behavior remained professional and courteous.

   

  KristyS****

  DirectorofClientServices

  
  

  Customer response

  02/21/2023

  I stand in disagreement with the collection agency’s position. The firms representative stepped over the line when she insisted that I provide a date of mailing after I made clear I did not have that information available. At the point I told her I did not have the information available, she should have left it alone instead of harassing me to come up with a date of mailing immediately. This firm continues to attempt to make payment history material in this matter. Again, I assert payment history is of no moment and has nothing to do with the unprofessional behavior of their employee. My attitude did not change on the recorded call until she demanded I provide information I politely informed her I did not have; that information being date of mailing. 

   

  
  
  
  
   

• Initial Complaint

  12/22/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Reimar Law has been extremely unprofessional. I have made several attempts to get in touch with my representative Betty C***** and haven’t gotten an answer or a call back. I have been trying to reach Betty since October and nothing. I have reached out to make payment arrangements to avoid garnishments as I have an elderly father that lives with me and has dementia. I can’t afford to get garnished when I have a house hold to take care of.

  Business response

  12/27/2022

  ***** ******’s file was placed with Reimer Law in July 2015.  A complaint was filed, and judgment was granted in favor of ******** ********** ******* **** ***** 2007-1 and against ***** ****** in the sum of $10,107.74 with interest at 3% from February 5, 2016.
                  Between February 2016 and October 2022, ******** ********** ******* **** ***** 2007-1, through counsel, issued seven (7) Notice of Court Proceeding to Collect Debt letters to ***** ******.  This resulted on one failed payment arrangement in 2016 and six (6) garnishment orders being issued by the Cleveland Municipal Court.
                  Ohio Revised Code Section 2716 outlines the wage garnishment process.  Once the judgment creditor issues the Notice of Court Proceeding to Collect Debt (“Notice”), the judgment debtor has fifteen (15) days to comply with the Notice or the judgment creditor may file a wage garnishment order with the court.  Compliance with the Notice requires the judgment debtor to complete and return the Notice with payment, pay the balance in full, apply for a municipal *****eeship or retain an approved consumer credit counseling service.
                  The latest Notice was sent to Ms. ****** on October 13, 2022.  Ms. ****** failed to comply with the Notice and, as a result, on or about October 28, 2022 a wage garnishment was mailed to Court.   The Court issued the garnishment order on December 6, 2022.
  Reimer Law Co. remains in full compliance with the law and federal regulations while pursuing the subject wage garnishment.
  

  Customer response

  12/30/2022

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
  
  Regards,
  
  ***** ******
  
  
  
  
   

• Initial Complaint

  09/28/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My wages had a garnishment issued for RITA taxes. I paid in full, spoke with an agent Bridget the entirety of my case. A year later, Bridget contacted me and told me they had another garnishment for me and belittled/berated me in the most unprofessional manner I’ve ever experienced. Literal screaming over me when I was trying to tell her it was paid in full. I was hung up on and the garnishment was issued again in the same amount, for the same case and yet again paid in full. After explaining to Bridget multiple times this was already paid, and her telling me no. Finally, I dove deeper into my case and called the courts and law firm multiple times over a few months span. Turns out the law firm never checked their mail, and had 3 attempts for them to cash an uncashed check and it needed to be re-issued. I left countless messages on the supervisor Cliff’s voicemail and NEVER got a call, still to this day. Took 2 weeks of phone tag with Bridget before I demanded speaking with someone else who looked into it and got the check re-issued on their error. Took 2 months to get my money after that. I was charged interest and $300+ extra in court costs for this unnecessary second garnishment. Still have not gotten an apology or so little as a phone call. I shouldn’t have had to handle this on my own and certainly shouldn’t have paid more court costs and interest!

  Business response

  10/14/2022

    Ms. ************* most recent tax collection case was filed in the ********** Municipal Court, known as City of *********, **** vs. ****** *. ***********, Case No: ** *** *****, filed November 15, 2019, for non-payment of 2017 municipal income taxes.  On June 23, 2021, a wage garnishment was filed, after the 15-day statutory demand to avoid garnishment was mailed to Ms. ***********. On June 8, 2022, a subsequent wage garnishment was filed because no funds were received by Reimer Law from the court, on the initial wage garnishment. Although, Reimer Law later learned that Ms. ************* employer had, in fact, paid funds into the court pursuant to the June 2021 wage garnishment.

  
              By letter dated July 21, 2022, Reimer Law was informed by the court that the court identified 8 individual cases for which additional defendants had uncashed checks from their respective employers outstanding. Ms. ***********’s garnishment funds were among those 8 cases. The clerk of Courts office was contacted, and Reimer law was advised that our Firm was not the only firm with outstanding, uncashed wage garnishment checks.  Further we were advised there were, apparently, issues with the postal service, resulting in missing/uncashed checks, which continued into late 2021.

  
              By letter of August 24, 2022, Reimer Law sent confirmation to the court that we had never received any of the uncashed checks on the 8 cases.  To date, these funds, with the exception of Ms. ***********’s, have still not been received from the court.

  
              Unfortunately, before the missing funds were brought to Reimer Law’s attention, the second wage garnishment was filed, again after the 15-day statutory demand was sent to Ms. ***********. This subsequent filing would not have occurred had Reimer Law timely received garnishment checks from the Court.

  
              To correct this error, the June 2021 garnishment has been used to pay off this judgment. In doing so, all interest was removed after the account was deemed satisfied in 2021. The total court costs on this case were $305.00 ($95.00 for the initial complaint and $105.00 each for the wage garnishments). Reimer Law is reimbursing Ms. *********** a total of $139.38 ($105.00 for the 2nd wage garnishment and $39.38 in interest).

  Customer response

  10/14/2022

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
  
  Regards,
  
  ****** ***********
  
  
  
  
    I did not receive this “reimbursement” nor have my numerous phone calls with voicemails been returned. I was also charged and paid over $300 in court costs for the unnecessary second garnishment. They also fail to admit they had 3+ notices from the courts that Reimer law needed to contact them regarding the uncashed check that would have prevented all of this. 

  Business response

  10/18/2022

  The consumer is responsible for the initial collection complaint ($95.00) and the first wage garnishment action ($105.00). The Reimer Law firm sent her a reimbursement under separate cover for the second garnishment action ($105.00) and interest ($39.38), as indicated in our initial response to the complaint.  See attached for further information.

• Initial Complaint

  07/08/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This "law firm" Reimer Law/collection, states they are legally protected to file garnishment of wages for a **** collection they BOUGHT from ****. We did not agree nor sign ANYTHING regarding our **** taxes with this "law firm". I sent a debt validation request to them, and they didn't send any of the requested information back to me, however they were ignorant enough to send me a copy of the court information that anyone can screenshot off the actual court website. This "law firm" should be ashamed of itself, especially in a situation where EVERYONE has been affected by the aftermath of a pandemic. If this "law firm" works this shady, by scare tactics, they are going to meet up with others like myself who are knowledgeable to the fact that its illegal what they are doing.

  Business response

  07/25/2022

  Reimer Law represents the ******** ****** *** ****** ********** as their retained counsel for the post-judgment collection of delinquent municipal income taxes throughout the State of Ohio. ******** is a governmental entity providing comprehensive municipal tax collection and administration to 390 cities and villages. As part of the tax collections ******** brings lawsuits against delinquent taxpayers after all other efforts have failed.

  Upon the granting of a judgment and before referring the judgment to Reimer Law Co. (“Reimer Law”), ******** will attempt to contact the taxpayer a final time by letter. The final letter will advise that the judgment will be referred for post-judgment collections, including the garnishment of wages.

  In the instant matter, ******** filed a Complaint on behalf of the ******* ** ********** *********** captioned ******* ** ********** ** ******* ** ******* ** *** **** *** ** ** ******* ****** ****** ***** ** ****** *****. The Complaint sought recovery for delinquent taxes for the years 2013,2014, 2015 and 2016. ******* *** ******** ******’s (collectively, “*******”) response to the Complaint by letter was deemed a pro se answer by Court on April 24, 2019.

  Subsequently, on November 4, 2019, the ******* entered into an Agreed Judgment Entry (“Agreed Entry”). The Agreed Entry provided for judgment in favor of the *******. The ******* agreed to pay $150.00 per month beginning November 15, 2019. Further, the Agreed Entry provided that no execution would issue on the judgment as long as payments were made as agreed. The ******* failed to make the payments as agreed. By “Final Notice” dated June 25, 2020 and sent to the *******, the ******* were advised by ******** that “failure to contact us regarding payment of this debt we will be referring your case for post-judgment collection…which may result in the garnishment of wages”.

  On September 30, 2020, the judgment was referred to Reimer Law for post-judgment collection. Upon referral to Reimer Law, the ******* were advised by letters dated September 30, 2020 that Reimer Law “has been retained” concerning delinquent taxes due for tax years 2013, 2014 2015, 2016 and 2017. (2017 had been added to the judgment by agreement of the parties). The letters also advised the ******* of their validation rights pursuant to 15 USC 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

  No response to the September 30, 2020 letters was received or nor was there contact otherwise made by the *******. Consequently, phone attempts were made by the Reimer Law. Between March, 2021 and June, 2021, four (4) phone calls were placed to the *******. Three of the calls went directly to an unidentified voice mail. No messages were left. The fourth call resulted in the response that the mailbox was full.

  On June 7, 2022, Reimer Law sent a “Notice of Court Proceeding to Collect Debt” via registered mail to ******* ******. The Notice is statutorily required prior to the filing of a motion for wage garnishment and affords a 15-day period to remit payment to avoid the wage attachment.  By letter dated June 9, 2022, the ******* requested validation of the debt and further requested no further contact to them, their home or their employer. As this was debt reduced to a judgment, a copy of the court docket reflecting the Agreed Judgment Entry was sent in response to the June 9, 2022 letter.

  Allowing additional time beyond the 15 days and having received no further contact from the *******, on July 6, 2022, Reimer Law filed a motion for an order of garnishment in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas.

  Contrary to the *******’ assertions, ******** did not suspend payment plans or the collections of delinquent taxes until the “workforce” returned to fulltime status. ******** attempted contact with the ******* by “Final Notice” in June 2020 to advise that post-judgment collections would begin. Further, Reimer Law advised they had been retained with regards to the delinquent taxes for the ******* of **********. Finally, in June. 2022, Mr. ****** was notified that a wage garnishment would be filed with the court and advised him of the opportunity to avoid the attachment of his wages.

  Customer response

  07/25/2022

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  NO FINAL notice dated June 25, 2020 was received by ******* or ******** ******  via regular mail or certified mail.

  
  

  NO LETTER dated September 30, 2020 was received from Reimer Law Co, concerning delinquent taxes for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and partial 2017 by ******* and ******** ****** via regular mail or certified mail. 

  
  

  There was NO CONTACT made by ******* and ******** ****** to Reimer Law Co, because there was NO COMMUNICATION received by Reimer Law Co or **** via phone messages or USPS regular mail or certified mail. 

  
  

  NO phone calls received and IF NO MESSAGES were left, for unknown cellphone number, than there is NO way for ******* and ******** ****** to know about said delinquent taxes.

  
  

  June 7, 2022 letter from Reimer Law Co was not sent, to my knowledge via registered mail.  No signatures or identification was requested from USPS upon delivery into the mailbox where letter was left.

  
  

  Judgement agreed upon November 4, 2019 HIGHLIGHTED on a copy of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court, enclosed with a short letter from Reimer Law Co,  instead of the requested Debt Validation request letter sent on June 9, 2022 does NOT mean judgement for garnishment.  It was the agreed upon payment plan for **** and ourselves. 

  
  

  As of July 11, 2022 ******* and ******** ****** have requested a hearing with Judge Miraldi and an Automatic Stay was filed at the courthouse on July 13, 2022.

  Reimer Law Co has unethically and financially brought about garnishment from taxes from 9 years ago,  during a time where inflation is at its highest, including gas, groceries and utilities.  The majority of people are barely keeping their heads above water and Reimer Law Co want to garnish wages that are not even able to keep food on our tables for our children and grandchildren.  We will continue to fight this in court and our voices will be heard in defense of other families and people working just to survive.  

  
  

  Regards,
  
  ******* ******

• Initial Complaint

  03/30/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Received a letter in January about a collection on a debt. At the time I didn’t know what was the debt so I asked for clarification. I was sent the court document which I don’t recall receiving from the original court date. Then I heard nothing about resolving the issue till the other day when I got a garnishment notice. I left a voice mail and sent several emails trying to avoid the garnishment but have not received a response. I have been getting calls from a Cleveland number but no voice mail left. I would like to try to avoid garnishment and setup a payment plan.

  Business response

  04/05/2022

  The account was received in our office on January 26th, 2022. The FDCPA required initial demand letter was sent to Mr. **** on February 1st. Our first contact with Mr. **** was by email received February 18th requesting verification of the debt. As this was a debt reduced to a judgment proof of the judgment was sent in response by letter dated February 21st. Hearing nothing further after a 30 day hold,  collection activity resumed with the mailing of the 15 day notice required by statute in Ohio advising a wage garnishment would be filed with the court. Phone contact was attempted on March 29 and 30th  but as the voice mail reached did not identify the owner no messages were left. Upon receipt of the BBB complaint the wage garnishment was cancelled pending resolution of the complaint. On April 1st the contact number provided in the BBB complaint was called and after requesting verification that we were speaking with Mr. **** a mutually agreeable payment plan was entered into negating the need to restart collection activity.  

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩