XXXX XXXX XXXX is the attorney representing Capital One, who has sued XXXX XXXX over debt collection. The suit was filed in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX was not aware that the suit had escalated to the point of a bank levy, which was withdrawn from XXXX bank account out in XX/XX/XXXX without prior notification. The levy included the amount owed, interest, attorney fees, and court fees. The total amount being sued is almost double the amount owed. 

Since the withdrawal of the levy in XXXX, XXXX has been attempting to contact XXXX with the assistance of his daughter, XXXX XXXX, in the hopes of resolving the case. 

XXXX can not be reached directly through the number provided. Representatives of his firm answers the phone and the representative explicitly states that they can not provide a number to which he can directly be reached. Representative does not state what position they hold in the firm. When XXXX requested to speak to an attorney directly or for direct phone number, representative stated they can not put in such request giving the reason that the attorneys are either very busy or are out of the office on business. Since XXXX was not initially aware of what the case was about or even how the levied came about, request for more case information and documents was denied by representative. The representative told XXXX the only way to access court documents was to request it from directly from the court. When XXXX asked for any options for the levy to be returned to the bank account, representative denied any other option other than paying them in full for the sued amount. Representative did not make it known that a claim of exemption was available. Recordings of phone conversations with representatives are recorded by the firm. 

XXXX was able to get court documents directly from the court. After examining the documents, it can be noted that the proof of debt did not include list of transactions that was not paid. The proof consisted of a bill that already had the accumulated amount with past due dates. After doing some research, XXXX found that a claim of exemption may be filed for a return of the levy and was filed shortly thereafter. 

On the day of the hearing to determine the claim of exemption, XXXX was not present. After the judge heard each side, judge approved for a partial return of the levy. Judge stated that other potential resolution in regards to the case could be made by communicating to the other party outside the courtroom. After greeting the other party outside, the other party stated she was a representing lawyer that the firm occasionally hired. The representing lawyer also stated since she is not the attorney assigned to the case, she could not answer any questions that XXXX XXXX had. After leaving the courthouse, XXXX made a call to the firm to see how else to resolve the case. The representative stated since they have not received any information from the court, they could not answer any questions. When requesting to have firm call XXXX back once they receive court information, they rejected request stating that the firm is too busy to make any call backs.