Quick Answer: Crista Boice sued Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and for wrongful garnishment, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Boice alleges that Absolute Resolutions wrongfully garnished her wages despite her having paid a consent judgment in full, causing her financial distress and anxiety. She seeks statutory and actual damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. This is a legal filing containing allegations; no finding of liability has been made.
Case Update — August 4, 2026
2026-05-26: Doc 4 — DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC. No corporate parents or affiliates identified. (Klander, Jessica) (Entered: 05/26/2026) — Link
2026-05-26: Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: U.S. District Judge Matthew T. Schelp. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.09, every nongovernmental corporate party or nongovernmental corporation that seeks to intervene in any case, and every party or intervenor in an action in which jurisdiction is based upon diversity, must file a Disclosure Statement immediately upon entering its appearance in the case. Please complete and file the certificate as soon as possible. (moed-0001.pdf). (DMM) — Link
2026-05-26: Doc 2 — NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendant Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC Sent To: Plaintiff (Klander, Jessica) (Entered: 05/26/2026) — Link
2026-05-26: Doc 3 — Petition (Removal/Transfer) Received From: St. Louis County, filed by Crista Boice.(DMM) (Entered: 05/26/2026) — Link
2026-05-26: Case Opening Notification — Link
2026-06-02: Doc 5 — ANSWER to Complaint by Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC.(Klander, Jessica) (Entered: 06/02/2026) — Link
2026-06-16: Doc 6 — RULE 16 ORDER This case is assigned to Track: two [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS]. (Joint Scheduling Plan due by 6/25/2026. Rule 16 Conference set for 6/30/2026 02:00 PM in Courtroom 16S – St. Louis before District Judge Matthew T. Schelp) Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 06/16/2026. (KCD) (Entered: 06/16/2026) — Link
2026-06-24: Doc 7 — NOTICE of Settlement by Crista Boice (Brody, Bryan) (Entered: 06/24/2026) — Link
2026-06-25: A Docket Text Order with Schedules — Link
2026-07-02: A Docket Text Order — Link
2026-07-02: Doc 9 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal — Link
Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF)
Facts as Alleged in the Complaint
The following is taken verbatim from the complaint filed in federal court. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.
The Parties
- Plaintiff Crista Boice (hereinafter “Boice” of “Plaintiff”) is an individual person currently residing in Jefferson County, Missouri.
- Defendant Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC (hereinafter “Absolute Resolutions” or “Defendant”) is a foreign limited liability company registered and in good standing with the Missouri Secretary of State.
- Defendant’s principal business purpose is the collection of consumer debts using the mail and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Electronically Filed – St Louis County – April 14, 2026 – 02:36 PM Case: 4:26-cv-00824-MTS
- Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 05/26/26 Page: 6 of 21 PageID #: 9 Defendant regularly collects, or attempts to collect, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.
- This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this civil suit pursuant to the Missouri Constitution. MO. CONST. Art. V § 14.
- This Court has statutory authority to grant the relief requested herein pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).
- Venue is proper pursuant to section 347.069 in St. Louis County, where Defendant’s registered agent and registered address are located.
Factual Allegations
- Absolute Resolutions filed a case against Boice in Jefferson County Circuit Court case number 23JE-AC02422 (hereinafter “Collection Lawsuit”), seeking payment for an alleged personal credit card debt.
- The Parties entered into a consent judgment for $3,902.36, plus $123.50 of court costs, for a total of $4,025.86, in the Collection Lawsuit.
- The consent judgment was silent as to the assessment of post-judgment interest, and the parties did not discuss or agree to assess post-judgment interest.
- Nevertheless, Absolute Resolutions requested a garnishment in the Collection Case wherein Absolute Resolutions represented that it was entitled to $4,101.51, representing the entire balance of the consent judgment, plus $40.00 post-judgment costs, plus an additional amount for post-judgment interest that Defendant never previously disclosed it would be assessing.
- Plaintiff relied upon Absolute Resolutions’ representation and paid the entire balance due of $4,101.51 into the registry of Jefferson County Circuit Court on July 3, 2024. Electronically Filed – St Louis County – April 14, 2026 – 02:36 PM Case: 4:26-cv-00824-MTS
- Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 05/26/26 Page: 7 of 21 PageID #: That same day, July 3, 2024, a clerk at the Jefferson County Circuit Court issued and mailed a check to Matthew Thomas Voight, the attorney of record for Absolute Resolutions, for the full $4,101.51.
- Plaintiff understood the Collection Lawsuit to be paid in full and expected no further activity relating to it.
- On June 26, 2025, Absolute Resolutions requested a new garnishment in the collection case, ignoring the fact that Boice had already paid in full.
- As of June 26, 2025, Absolute Resolutions had no right to seek any money from
- The garnishment sought $4,415.36, representing the amount of the consent Boice. judgment plus post-judgment court costs and post-judgment interest, to be paid from Plaintiff’s wages at her place of employment.
- Even if Absolute Resolutions had a right to collect post-judgment interest, Absolute Resolutions misrepresented to Boice that she owed $4,025.86, in the Collection Lawsuit, and did not disclose that interest would be accruing on this amount, causing the amount due to change on a daily basis, such that the amount stated in the consent judgment was already false the very next day.
- Plaintiff was not earning wages as of June 2025, but learned about the garnishment soon after returning to work in November 2025 and receiving her first paycheck.
- Plaintiff was upset, worried, confused given that she had paid in full and needed all of her wages to be able to afford to live. Electronically Filed – St Louis County – April 14, 2026 – 02:36 PM Case: 4:26-cv-00824-MTS
- Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 05/26/26 Page: 8 of 21 PageID #: On January 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash in the Collection Case, explaining that she had paid the Consent Judgment in full by cashier’s check delivered to the Jefferson County Circuit Court, attaching the receipt dated July 3, 2024.
- Absolute Collections did not immediately quash the garnishment or satisfy the judgment; rather, Absolute Collections filed a response in opposition on January 7, 2025 and a Statement of Judgment Balance on January 20, 2026, claiming $4,307.36 was still due and owing by Boice.
- Plaintiff’s wages continued to be garnished despite Defendant’s actual knowledge that Plaintiff had paid in full and owed nothing further.
- Absolute Collections did not investigate the payment Boice had made a year prior nor did Absolute Collections take any action to obtain a new check for $4,101.51 from the Jefferson County Circuit.
- Boice’s Motion to Quash was heard in the Collection Lawsuit on January 28, 2026, during which a clerk for Jefferson County Circuit Court physically presented a new check for $4,101.51 to the attorney for Absolute Collections at the Judge’s request, and the hearing was reset to March 18, 2026.
- Nevertheless, Absolute Collections still did not immediately quash the garnishment or satisfy the judgment.
- Plaintiff’s wages continued to be garnished, despite Defendant having received payment in full on the alleged debt.
- Not until March 17, 2026, the day before the next hearing in the Collection Lawsuit, did Absolute Collections finally quash the garnishment and file a Satisfaction of Judgment. Electronically Filed – St Louis County – April 14, 2026 – 02:36 PM Case: 4:26-cv-00824-MTS
- Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 05/26/26 Page: 9 of 21 PageID #: Defendant’s collection conduct as recited herein caused Plaintiff a concrete injury by receiving money to which it had no right.
- Defendant’s unlawful collection attempts caused Plaintiff to suffer statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k in the amount of $1,000.00, plus actual damages for anxiety, frustration, and worry, and the attorney’s fees he incurred in the collection lawsuit.
About This Coverage
I monitor federal court cases involving debt relief companies as an educational resource for consumers, other companies in the industry, and regulators. This project began on February 27, 2026, and covers cases filed on or after February 20, 2026. Cases filed before that date are not included. I am currently monitoring 334 companies in the debt relief space.
I report on all cases I am able to monitor — no company is singled out or targeted. The goal is comprehensive, fair coverage that helps consumers understand the legal landscape.
Important: The information on this page comes directly from court documents. I present the allegations exactly as stated in those filings — I do not interpret, summarize, or paraphrase complaint language, as doing so could introduce unintended bias. These are allegations, not findings of fact. Every defendant is presumed innocent and has the right to contest the claims in court. A lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing.
You can view the full docket at CourtListener.
Are you a party to this case? I welcome statements, corrections, and updates from any party — plaintiff, defendant, or their counsel. If you'd like to add context or a statement for readers, please contact me directly. I will publish it here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Defendant been found liable in this case?
No. This is a complaint — a legal filing that contains allegations made by Plaintiff. Defendant has not been found liable for any wrongdoing. A finding of liability requires a court proceeding where evidence is presented and evaluated by a judge or jury.
What does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibit?
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) prohibits third-party debt collectors from using abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices. It requires collectors to send a debt validation notice and prohibits harassment, false representations, and unfair practices. Statutory damages can reach $1,000 per lawsuit plus actual damages and attorney fees.
The Daily Money Brief — Free, at 10 AM
Money you may be owed, scams to dodge, and the fine print decoded — the consumer money news that affects your wallet, every weekday.
What is the current status of this case?
This case was recently filed. See the CourtListener docket linked at the bottom of this page for the complete filing record. This page is updated automatically when new documents are filed.
Where can I read the full complaint against Defendant?
The full complaint is publicly available on CourtListener. The Facts as Alleged section above reproduces the complaint’s factual allegations verbatim. The complete case record, including all filings, is available through the docket link at the bottom of this page.
Source: CourtListener. Information on this page is taken verbatim from the court complaint. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.
Part of the Federal Lawsuits Database
This case is one of 353 federal court cases involving debt relief companies tracked at Federal Lawsuits Against Debt Relief Companies. Browse by company type, legal claim, or alleged conduct to identify industry-wide patterns.
Are you dealing with a debt relief company? If you're considering working with a debt relief company or have already signed a contract, use my free Find Your Path tool to get personalized guidance on your situation.
