Case summary: Fowkes & Hasanbasic filed a federal Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit alleging two opposite forms of post-bankruptcy credit reporting error: Bank of America accounts discharged in Chapter 7 allegedly continued to show balances, past-due amounts, and charge-off statuses, while mortgage accounts the consumers reaffirmed and continued paying were allegedly reported as discharged and closed.
The First Amended Complaint in Mahland v. TransUnion LLC, et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-00319-CEM-PRL, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C. Hasanbasic represent Allison and Peter Mahland.
The complaint contains allegations that have not been adjudicated. No court has found any defendant liable, and each defendant is entitled to contest the allegations.
The Lawsuit Concerns Two Different Post-Bankruptcy Reporting Problems
The Mahlands received a Chapter 7 discharge on December 10, 2025. Their lawsuit alleges that the resulting credit-reporting problems did not involve a single status mistakenly applied to every account. Instead, the complaint identifies two materially different categories of accounts that allegedly required different treatment.
Discharged Bank of America accounts allegedly continued showing debt
The complaint alleges that three Bank of America accounts—one belonging to Mrs. Mahland and two belonging to Mr. Mahland—were included in the Chapter 7 case and discharged. Nevertheless, TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax allegedly continued reporting current balances, past-due amounts, and charge-off or write-off statuses that suggested the consumers remained personally liable for those debts.
Reaffirmed mortgage accounts allegedly appeared discharged and closed
The complaint separately alleges that the Mahlands reaffirmed mortgage obligations with Freedom Mortgage and Third Federal Savings and Loan Association and continued making the required payments. Despite that, certain credit reports allegedly described those accounts as included in or discharged through bankruptcy and closed. In some instances, the reports allegedly omitted the consumers’ ongoing payment history.
This contrast is important. Accurate post-bankruptcy reporting requires attention to the legal status and history of each individual account. A debt discharged in bankruptcy is not the same as an obligation that was reaffirmed and remains active.
The Consumers Submitted Bankruptcy and Reaffirmation Records
According to the complaint, the Mahlands did more than send generalized complaints that their credit reports were wrong. In March 2026, they mailed written disputes to the credit reporting agencies and identified the specific accounts and fields they believed were inaccurate.
Their disputes allegedly included relevant bankruptcy documents, such as:
- The Chapter 7 petition and schedules
- The bankruptcy discharge order
- Documents concerning the reaffirmed Freedom Mortgage account
- Documents concerning the reaffirmed Third Federal account
The complaint alleges that these records showed which Bank of America accounts had been discharged and which mortgage obligations remained active through reaffirmation.
The Complaint Alleges That the Errors Were Verified Instead of Corrected
The lawsuit alleges that the credit bureaus transmitted the disputes to the companies furnishing the account information but nevertheless verified multiple disputed tradelines as accurate.
Among other things, the complaint alleges:
- TransUnion twice verified Mrs. Mahland’s disputed Bank of America reporting despite receiving notice of the discharge.
- TransUnion allegedly continued reporting a reaffirmed Freedom Mortgage account as included in bankruptcy.
- Experian allegedly verified the discharged Bank of America accounts with balances and charge-off statuses.
- Experian allegedly continued reporting reaffirmed Freedom Mortgage and Third Federal accounts as discharged or closed.
- Equifax allegedly verified discharged Bank of America accounts with balances and derogatory statuses and continued reporting the reaffirmed Freedom Mortgage account as discharged and closed.
The complaint also asserts claims against Bank of America, Freedom Mortgage, and Third Federal as furnishers. It alleges that the furnishers failed to conduct reasonable investigations after receiving notice of the disputes from the credit reporting agencies and failed to direct the agencies to correct inaccurate account information.
The FCRA Claims Asserted in the Lawsuit
The complaint asserts three categories of claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act:
- Reasonable procedures: Claims against TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), which requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy when preparing consumer reports.
- Reasonable reinvestigations: Claims against the credit bureaus under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, including allegations that they failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations and failed to review and consider all relevant information submitted with the disputes.
- Furnisher investigations: Claims against Bank of America, Freedom Mortgage, and Third Federal under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), based on their alleged investigation and reporting duties after receiving the bureau-transmitted disputes.
The Mahlands seek actual damages, statutory damages where available, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief permitted under the FCRA. The complaint alleges emotional distress, anxiety, frustration, confusion, loss of sleep, and the time required to obtain reports, prepare disputes, and review the resulting responses.
Why Post-Bankruptcy Credit Reporting Is Not One-Size-Fits-All
A bankruptcy discharge does not require every account to disappear from a credit report, nor does it make every tradeline identical. The accuracy analysis may depend on whether an obligation was discharged, reaffirmed, secured by collateral, paid, modified, or otherwise treated by the bankruptcy court and the parties.
A credit report may become inaccurate or materially misleading when it suggests that a consumer still personally owes a discharged balance. A different problem can arise when an active reaffirmed account is reported as discharged or closed, obscuring payments the consumer continues making.
Consumers can learn more in our detailed guide to credit report errors after bankruptcy discharge.
What Records Should Consumers Preserve?
A consumer who finds inaccurate post-bankruptcy reporting should preserve the documents needed to show both the bankruptcy outcome and the later dispute process. Relevant records may include:
- Complete credit reports from each bureau reporting the account
- The bankruptcy petition, schedules, discharge order, and relevant court orders
- Any reaffirmation agreement and related bankruptcy filing
- Account statements and proof of post-bankruptcy payments
- Every dispute letter and its supporting documents
- Certified-mail receipts or other proof of delivery
- The bureaus’ investigation results and updated reports
- Credit denials, adverse-action notices, unfavorable loan terms, and other resulting harm
The precise language and data fields used by each credit bureau can differ. Consumers should review the complete tradeline rather than relying only on a summary score or monitoring alert.
F&H Law Group Handles Post-Bankruptcy FCRA Cases
Fowkes & Hasanbasic represents Florida consumers in FCRA cases involving inaccurate post-bankruptcy reporting, failed credit-bureau reinvestigations, and furnishers that continue verifying incorrect information after receiving documented disputes.
Learn more about our Florida FCRA practice, credit report error cases, and furnisher investigation claims.
If inaccurate reporting continues after your bankruptcy discharge, contact F&H Law Group through our online contact page or call (727) 500-1010 for a free case review. Clients pay no out-of-pocket attorney’s fees to retain our firm for an accepted FCRA case.
About the Attorneys
Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C. Hasanbasic are the founding shareholders of Fowkes & Hasanbasic, P.A., also known as F&H Law Group. They represent consumers in federal and state litigation throughout Florida.
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. The allegations summarized above are drawn from the First Amended Complaint in a pending lawsuit. No court has determined that any defendant is liable for the alleged conduct.