Proposed Massachusetts Settlement With Debt Collector Could Deliver Sweeping Relief To 1000’s Of Debtors

A proposed agreement between Massachusetts and Avon debt collector Andrew Metcalf would cancel thousands of alleged consumer debts, unwind judgments and liens, and permanently remove Metcalf and his companies from the state’s collection market—subject to court approval.

By Credit and Collection News Staff

A proposed settlement filed in Suffolk County Superior Court could provide broad relief to Massachusetts consumers who were pursued by debt collector Andrew Metcalf and his affiliated companies, including debt forgiveness, vacated court judgments, released property liens and the possible return of seized vehicles.

The agreement, announced through court filings this week, remains subject to judicial approval. If approved, it would resolve a 2024 enforcement action brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office alleging that Metcalf and his debt-related businesses engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the state Consumer Protection Act. The businesses named include Champion Funding Inc., Champion Funding LLC and Judgment Acquisitions Unlimited.

Under the proposed resolution, Metcalf would surrender his Massachusetts debt-collection license and be barred from operating the companies in the state again, according to GBH News’ review of the filings. The settlement could affect approximately 6,500 alleged consumer debts with a stated aggregate balance of roughly $53 million.

Relief extends beyond account balances

The most consequential feature of the proposed settlement may be its effort to unwind collection-related legal consequences—not simply extinguish account balances.

Matt Brooks, managing attorney of the Consumer Rights Unit at Greater Boston Legal Services, told GBH that the agreement contemplates vacating or rolling back court decisions, releasing liens attached to consumers’ homes and returning cars that were seized.

For affected consumers, those remedies could be more meaningful than a balance cancellation alone. A debt judgment can carry long-term financial and practical effects through bank levies, liens, collection activity, credit-reporting consequences and barriers to selling or refinancing property. The state’s reported plan to reverse certain judgments and release liens therefore puts the settlement squarely in the broader debate over post-judgment collection practices.

Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said consumers should not face aggressive or unlawful collection practices. “Because of this settlement, thousands of families in the Commonwealth will be provided with debt relief and these predatory companies will never be allowed to operate in Massachusetts again,” Campbell said in a statement to GBH.

Allegations included vehicle seizures

The state’s 2024 action accused Metcalf and his companies of unfair and deceptive debt-collection practices. Among the allegations was the unlawful seizure of vehicles to collect older consumer debts, according to the report.

The proposed settlement does not constitute an adjudicated finding on each allegation. Still, it would close a significant enforcement matter involving a collector whose practices have drawn substantial scrutiny. GBH reported that at least 20 legal complaints had been filed in state and federal courts against Metcalf and his companies since 2019, with many matters involving allegations related to vehicle seizures—including claims that vehicles belonging to the wrong people were taken.

Metcalf could not be reached for comment, GBH reported.

The settlement also contains a contingent monetary provision: Metcalf was ordered to pay $650,000 to the state, but that amount was suspended based on his reported financial condition. Court documents state that the payment could become immediately due if the financial information is found to be untruthful.

That structure highlights a recurring enforcement issue in consumer collections: restitution and civil penalties can be difficult to recover when a collector’s financial condition is limited. In such cases, cancellation of accounts, dissolution or market exit, and repair of judgments or liens can become central forms of consumer relief.

Separate class action adds relief

The proposed state settlement comes alongside a separate resolution in a class action involving consumers sued by Metcalf’s operations.

In that matter, Metcalf agreed to void debt-related judgments and dismiss pending cases tied to the class action. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the agreement would forgive about $3 million in alleged debt for more than 1,300 people.

Taken together, the state and private resolutions could reach a substantial population of Massachusetts consumers. The state settlement’s approximately 6,500 accounts and $53 million stated balance represent the broader portfolio at issue, while the class action addresses a defined set of judgments and pending cases. The ultimate scope of relief will depend on the court’s approval of the state agreement and the implementation of the required account, court-record and property-related remedies.

Broader Massachusetts collections backdrop

The agreement arrives as consumer debt litigation has surged in Massachusetts courts. State Trial Court data showed 146,000 consumer debt cases filed in 2025—more than a 60% increase from 2023. More than three-quarters of those cases were filed by nine companies, and the three largest filers—LVNV Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management Inc. and Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC—accounted for more than half of all consumer debt cases filed in the state last year.

The data also found that 56% of consumer debt cases ended in default judgments in 2025. Consumer advocates have pointed to failures to appear, lack of notice, work and child-care constraints, and the difficulty of navigating debt litigation without counsel as key drivers of default outcomes.

Massachusetts permits 12% annual interest on judgments, a figure advocates say can materially increase the burden on consumers who already face collection litigation.

The Metcalf settlement is therefore likely to be viewed not only as a case-specific remedy, but also as a warning to collectors, debt buyers and collection-law firms operating in a state where collection litigation and related enforcement scrutiny have both intensified.

Compliance implications

For collection agencies and debt buyers, the case reinforces several operational priorities:

• Maintain clear documentation establishing ownership, balance accuracy and legal enforceability of every account placed for collection.

• Use judicial remedies and post-judgment enforcement only when legally authorized and supported by valid court orders.

• Establish controls around repossession, vehicle seizure, liens and other asset-based remedies, particularly when third parties or similarly named consumers could be affected.

• Ensure collection licensing and state-specific compliance requirements are current before conducting collection activity.

• Maintain procedures to promptly identify, correct and remediate improper lawsuits, judgments, liens, levies or asset seizures.

Massachusetts has continued to pursue aggressive collection-related enforcement. In June, Campbell’s office secured a preliminary injunction against Assessment Resolution LLC, East Coast Financial and their operators, alleging that the entities used false identities, threats and deceptive representations to obtain payments on old judgments. The court ordered the defendants to stop collection activity, preserve evidence and refrain from dissipating assets while the litigation proceeds.

The proposed Metcalf resolution, however, is notable for the scale of its prospective account-level and post-judgment relief. If approved, it could eliminate alleged obligations for thousands of Massachusetts residents while restoring property rights and court records for consumers affected by the companies’ collection practices.