Law Offices of Palmer, Reifler & Associates, P.A.

File a police report.

And send a response letter requesting proper validation of the debt.

Do not verify ANYTHING with them.

This sounds like a typical extortion by fear scam.

thanks Ohiogal! I will definitely file a police report. I will send out the letter today.

I dont see anything in your post relating to credit reporting, so neither the FCRA or the FDCPA appear relevant. This appears to relate only to personal matters in which no criminal charges have been filed.
I dont see the ability to request debt validation, send a cease and desist letter, or take any other collection practice measure under the FDCPA.
Who do they purport to represent? Who do they allege is the damaged party?
The store would be the damaged party in any civil litigation. If they have chosen not to bring criminal charges, I doubt seriously if they are contemplating civil litigation, and that the person calling is an attorney representing them.
I would simply request the party to identify their client prior to any further communications with you. An attorney is not the principal in civil litigation, they are the agent of their client. Until they have purported to be an attorney acting on behalf of a client, I simply dont think you have established a violation.
I dont know what you would assert in a police report until such time as the party has alleged representation and identified their client.

they have stated their client, Rite Aid and in the correspondence. The letter simply states they represent Rite-Aid but there was no mention that Rite Aid requested this type of action from this firm. "Should full or partial payment not be made on time, we may review the matter for the possibility of recommending that our client take further civil action and depending on the state law, may choose to make a higher settlement request on behalf of our client. Rite Aid may in the future consider filing a lawsuit, in which case it will likely seek any available attorney's fees, court costs, and other legal expensed throughout such litigation."

So, this statement leads me to believe that they are acting on their own, not at Rite Aid's direction. It just feels like extortion to me.

[COLOR=black]The Law Offices of Palmer, Reifler & Associates, P.A. is a law firm based in Orlando, Florida which focuses on representing retailers for civil claims against individuals who have been caught stealing from the retail stores. Please be advised that the decision to pursue claims similar to this one is made at the corporate level, not the store level. Once a theft is documented, the case is sent to the corporate office for review of whether civil damages will be requested. In this case, Rite Aid???s corporate office forwarded the file to our Firm to make the civil request. The information contained in this response is not to be construed as legal advice but instead is information that may help you understand the request that was made.

I do not know which state you are in and the law of each state is different. However, all states have civil theft statutes that allow retailers to request statutory civil damages for acts of retail theft, and most allow for damages above and beyond actual damages, even when the merchandise is recovered. The various state statutes impose civil liability for certain theft acts. If your son committed the act as you admit in your question, your son would likely be liable under the particular state statute. The store has the option to pursue the civil matter in civil court if you choose not to pay. The reason the store hired a law firm like Palmer Reifler is that it would like to resolve the civil claim through the settlement offer or civil demand process.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and its state law equivalents (together referred herein as the ???Act???) are clearly intended to protect consumers from abusive debt collection. Section 803(5) of the federal Act defines debt as ???a consumer???s obligation . . . to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services (being purchased) are primarily for personal, family or household purposes . . .??? Likewise, the FTC Commentary to the Act specifically states that the Act does not apply to ???unpaid taxes, fines, alimony, or tort claims because they are not debts incurred from a ???transaction (involving the purchase of) property . . . or services . . . for personal, family or household purposes.??? (Emphasis added).

The case of Shorts v. Palmer, 155 F.R.D. 172 (D.C. Ohio 1994), as well as the opinion from the Federal Trade Commission, confirms our position that the Act and any other statutes designed to protect consumers are not applicable to civil theft demands or settlement offers which request statutory penalty and/or actual damages for alleged acts of retail theft, because retail theft is a tort against property rights rather than a consensual consumer transaction.

Congress, the courts, and the Federal Trade Commission have all clearly ruled that the Act does not apply to civil settlement offers concerning tort claims, such as theft. See Shorts v. Palmer, 155 F.R.D. 172 (D.C. Ohio 1994); Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, 140 F.3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1998); Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163 (3d Cir. 1987); Staub v. Harris, 626 F.2d 275 (3d Cir. 1980); Coretti v. Lefkowitz, 965 F. Supp. 3 (D.C. Conn. 1997). The Act emanates from a contract law perspective and has no application to a tort claim.

If you have an attorney, please have your attorney contact our firm. If you choose to not hire an attorney and would like to discuss the matter in a no pressure setting, feel free to contact me toll free at (866) 875-6565. Marisa McIntyre.[/COLOR]