CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
OKLAHOMA COUNTY • CJ-2026-2018

LVNV Funding LLC v. Dustin Tate

Filed: Mar 17, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a man in Oklahoma owes $10,922.81 — not to a bank, not to a credit card company he’s ever heard of, but to a shadowy financial entity called LVNV Funding LLC, which bought his debt from a trust with a name straight out of a Silicon Valley AI startup pitch deck: Pagaya AI Debt Grantor Trust 2024-3. Yes, you read that right. There’s an actual AI Debt Grantor Trust now. And no, we are not making this up.

So who is Dustin Tate? Honestly, we don’t know much. He’s just a guy, probably living his life, maybe bought something online with a WebBank-issued credit line — possibly a "Buy Now, Pay Later" deal, the kind that lets you splurge on a Peloton or a new mattress with zero upfront cost and maximum regret later. At some point, things went sideways. Payments stopped. The account defaulted. And then, like a horror movie jump scare, the debt didn’t just get sent to collections — it got securitized, packaged, sold, and assigned through layers of financial middlemen until it landed in the lap of LVNV Funding LLC, a company that exists solely to buy up other people’s bad debts and sue to get them paid. Think of them less as a bank and more as a debt vulture — circling, waiting, then swooping in with a lawsuit when the carcass of someone’s financial misstep hits the ground.

Now, let’s follow the money trail, because it’s wild. According to the court filing, Dustin Tate originally borrowed from WebBank — a real, legitimate financial institution based in Utah that partners with fintech companies to offer digital credit products. But WebBank didn’t hold onto the debt. Nope. Instead, they sold it — or more likely, bundled it with thousands of other defaulted accounts — to Pagaya AI Debt Grantor Trust 2024-3. Let that name marinate. Pagaya is a fintech company that uses artificial intelligence to assess and purchase consumer debt portfolios. That’s right: an algorithm, trained on your spending habits and credit history, decided your unpaid balance was worth buying. It’s not a person in a suit making the call — it’s a machine crunching data, spitting out probabilities, and saying, “Yeah, this dude might pay someday. Let’s buy his debt for pennies on the dollar.”

Then, on June 12, 2025 — just a few months before this lawsuit — that trust sold Portfolio 45806 (which includes Dustin Tate’s account) to LVNV Funding or one of its predecessors. And just like that, the right to collect $10,922.81 — principal, interest, fees, whatever’s left — transferred to LVNV. They didn’t lend Dustin a dime. They never met him. They don’t care if he lost his job or had a medical emergency. All they know is: the paperwork says they own the debt, and now they want their money. So they filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma County District Court, backed by an affidavit from someone named Dimeshia Hook — an “Authorized Representative” of LVNV — who swears under penalty of perjury that all this is true, that the records are accurate, and that yes, Dustin Tate owes every penny.

Why are they in court? Because this is how debt collection works in America now. LVNV isn’t asking for a trial. They’re not accusing Dustin of fraud or theft. They’re simply asking the judge to issue a default judgment — a rubber-stamp ruling that says, “Yep, the math checks out, you owe this money, pay up.” The legal claim is straightforward: indebtedness. That’s legalese for “you borrowed, you didn’t pay, now we’re suing.” And because LVNV has the affidavit, the assignment documents, and the chain of ownership (at least on paper), they’re likely to win — unless Dustin shows up with proof he already paid, or that the debt isn’t his, or that the documents are flawed. But let’s be real: most people don’t show up. They ignore the lawsuit, thinking it’s a scam, or they can’t afford a lawyer, or they’re just too overwhelmed. And that’s when the courts start garnishing wages, freezing bank accounts, and turning a $7,000 credit card balance into a $12,000 financial nightmare.

Now, what do they want? $10,922.81. Is that a lot? Depends on who you ask. If you’re a multi-million-dollar debt-buying firm, it’s chump change — a tiny blip in a portfolio worth millions. But for an individual? That’s a car payment. A year of rent. A medical bill. A dream vacation. Or, more likely, an impossible sum that could tank a credit score, trigger wage garnishment, and haunt someone for years. And LVNV isn’t just after the principal — they want interest (at the statutory rate, which in Oklahoma is 10% per year), court costs, and a reasonable attorney’s fee. So if this drags on, that $10,922 could easily balloon to $13,000 or more. All over a debt they didn’t originate, didn’t manage, and didn’t lose sleep over.

Here’s the absurd part: nobody in this story seems to be the actual lender. WebBank issued the credit, sure. But they’re long gone. Pagaya’s AI scooped up the debt like digital scrap metal. LVNV is just the collector with a law firm on speed dial. And Dustin Tate? He’s just a name on a spreadsheet, a data point in a high-volume litigation machine. The whole thing feels less like a courtroom and more like a financial shell game — where your debt gets passed around like a hot potato until someone sues you for it, and good luck proving otherwise when the only evidence is an affidavit from a stranger who’s never met you.

We’re not saying Dustin Tate doesn’t owe the money. Maybe he maxed out a credit line and ghosted it. Maybe he forgot to pay. Maybe he’s disputing it. We don’t know. But what we do know is that this case is a perfect snapshot of how broken the consumer debt system has become. You can now be sued by a company that didn’t lend you money, using records you’ve never seen, over a debt that’s been bought and sold like a stock. And the whole thing hinges on an affidavit — a single document signed by someone named Dimeshia Hook, notarized on a Wednesday morning, claiming it’s all true. That’s the foundation of a $10,922 lawsuit.

So who are we rooting for? Honestly? We’re rooting for the system to make sense. We’re rooting for transparency. We’re rooting for a world where you can look at a bill and know who you owe, why, and how it ended up in court. But until then, we’ll keep watching cases like this one — where AI trusts trade human debt, and people get sued by corporations that exist only on paper — and wonder: when did our financial lives become someone else’s profit margin?

Case Overview

$10,923 Demand Petition/complaint
Jurisdiction
District Court, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$10,923 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 debt

Petition Text

536 words
25-50564-0 ZH5 010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA LVNV FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff, vs. DUSTIN TATE, Defendant. PETITION FOR INDEBTEDNESS COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorneys who hereby enter their appearance herein, and for its cause of action against the defendants alleges and states as follows: 1. WebBank, provided credit to the defendant on account number XXX7838. Defendant defaulted on the obligation. The account has been assigned to Plaintiff. 2. Defendant owes Plaintiff $10,922.81. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against the Defendant in the sum of $10,922.81, with interest at the statutory rate from the date of judgment, all court costs and a reasonable attorney's fee, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. William L. Nixon, Jr., #012804 Harley L. Homjak, #019736 Gracelyn Porras Dillingham, #35852 Jenifer A. Gani, #021876 Daniela Westfahl, #36242 Mariah S. Ellicott, #36309 Benjamin F. Brackett, #36580 LOVE, BEAL & NIXON, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 32738 Oklahoma City, OK 73123 Telephone: 405-720-0565 E-Mail: [email protected] IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OK LVNV Funding LLC Plaintiff vs. Dustin Tate Defendant(s) PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT OF INDEBTEDNESS AND OWNERSHIP OF ACCOUNT I am an Authorized Representative for LVNV Funding LLC (hereafter the "Plaintiff"), and hereby certify as follows: 1. I have personal knowledge regarding Plaintiff's creation and maintenance of its normal business records, including computer records of its accounts receivable. This information is regularly and contemporaneously maintained during the course of Plaintiff's business. I am authorized to execute this affidavit on behalf of Plaintiff and the information below is true and correct based on the Plaintiff's business records. 2. In the regular course of business, Plaintiff regularly acquires revolving credit accounts, installment accounts, service accounts, and/or other credit lines or obligations. The records provided to Plaintiff at the time of acquisition are represented to include information provided by the original creditor and/or its successors-in-interest. Such information includes the debtor's name and social security number, the account balance, the identity of the original creditor and the account number. 3. Based on the business records maintained on account XXX7838 (hereafter, the "Account"), which are a compilation of the information provided to Plaintiff upon acquisition and information obtained since acquisition, the Account is the result of the extension of credit to Dustin Tate by WebBank on or about 05/01/2024. Said business records further indicate that the Account was then owned by Pagaya AI Debt Grantor Trust 2024-3. Pagaya AI Debt Grantor Trust 2024-3 later sold and/or assigned Portfolio 45806, which included the Defendant's Account, to Plaintiff or Plaintiff's predecessor(s)-in-interest on 06/12/2025. Thereafter, all ownership rights were assigned to, transferred to and became vested in Plaintiff, including the right to collect the balance owing of $10,922.81 plus any legally permissible interest. 4. Based on the business records maintained in regard to the Account, the above stated amount is justly and duly owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and all just and lawful offsets, payments and credits to the Account have been allowed. Demand for payment was made more than thirty days ago. ______________________________ Dimeshia Hook November 26, 2025 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by the above-signed on Wednesday, November 26, 2025. _____________________________________ (Notary Public) PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT OF INDEBTEDNESS AND OWNERSHIP OF ACCOUNT
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.