CS-2026-00005 - Midland Credit Management, Inc. v. Tamara K. Hutchison

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: someone in Minnesota is suing a woman in Oklahoma for $2,651.31 over two credit card accounts she hasn’t paid—and the only person who shows up to court might be a notary public from Stearns County who’s never met either of them. That’s not a courtroom drama. That’s a bureaucratic ghost story.

Meet Midland Credit Management, Inc.—a debt collection company that buys up delinquent credit card accounts like they’re clearance bin electronics, then sues people to get their money back. They don’t issue credit. They don’t hand out plastic with your name on it. They just wait in the shadows, purchase your financial regrets for pennies on the dollar, and then show up years later with a lawsuit and a smile. Their legal foot soldier in this case? Grisel Lopez Pena, a “Legal Specialist” based in St. Cloud, Minnesota—over 700 miles away from Beaver County, Oklahoma, where Tamara K. Hutchison lives and, presumably, tries to live down her credit history.

Tamara, as far as we can tell from this filing, is just another American caught in the debt machine. Sometime in 2023, she opened two credit cards: one with First Electronic Bank under a program branded as “Destiny,” which sounds like a dating app for people who believe in soulmates, and another with Credit One Bank, N.A.—a financial institution so synonymous with subprime credit cards that they practically have a theme song. She used them, made a few payments, and then… stopped. The last payment on the Destiny card was August 11, 2023. On the Credit One card? September 8, 2023. After that? Radio silence. The accounts were “charged off” in early 2024—bank-speak for “we’re writing this off as a loss”—and promptly sold to Midland, who now claims ownership of Tamara’s unpaid balances like a repo man with a spreadsheet.

Now, before you start picturing Tamara swiping her cards on luxury spa weekends or funding a secret espresso machine addiction, let’s talk numbers. The total? $2,651.31. Broken down, that’s $1,095.09 from the Destiny card and $1,556.22 from Credit One. For context, that’s less than the average American spends on coffee in a year, or about half the cost of a new iPhone. It’s not chump change, sure—but it’s also not a fortune. It’s the kind of amount that could’ve been settled over the phone with a payment plan, a hardship request, or even a single awkward conversation. Instead, we’re here. In court. With affidavits. And notaries. And legal specialists in Minnesota swearing under penalty of perjury that electronic records show a woman in Oklahoma owes money she hasn’t paid.

So why are we in court? Because Midland filed a “Petition for Indebtedness”—twice, actually, once for each account. That’s legalese for “she owes us money and won’t pay, so make her.” They’re not asking for punitive damages. They’re not demanding she return a stolen lawn gnome or apologize in a newspaper ad. Just the balance, plus interest at the statutory rate (which in Oklahoma is 5% unless the contract says otherwise), court costs, and “such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper”—a legal flourish that basically means “and whatever else you think is fair, Judge, we’re cool with.”

Here’s the wild part: Midland didn’t even hire a local lawyer. Grisel Lopez Pena is representing them from Minnesota. She’s not an attorney—at least, not according to the filing. She’s a “Legal Specialist,” which in debt collection land usually means someone trained to file these lawsuits by the hundreds, if not thousands, using templated affidavits that swap out names and numbers like Mad Libs. She swears she has access to the records, that they’re kept in the regular course of business, and that yes, if she were called to testify, she could do so competently. But here’s the kicker: she’s not testifying. She’s not even in the state. She’s signing affidavits in Minnesota, notarized by Emily Ann Walker (bless her heart), and mailing them into an Oklahoma courtroom like it’s a time capsule from the future of debt collection: automated, impersonal, and slightly dystopian.

Tamara, as far as we know, hasn’t responded yet. She might not even know about this. The case was filed on November 21, 2025—yes, the future, but we’re rolling with it—and she may still be blissfully unaware that a corporation in California (Midland is based in San Diego) now owns her financial missteps and is preparing to sue her over them. If she ignores the lawsuit, Midland will likely get a default judgment—meaning the court says, “Well, she didn’t show up, so we’ll assume you’re right,” and boom: wage garnishment, bank levies, credit score in the gutter. If she fights it, she could challenge the debt, demand proof, argue the account wasn’t properly assigned, or claim she already paid it. But that requires time, knowledge, and energy—three things most people drowning in debt don’t have.

So what do they want? $2,651.31. Is that a lot? Depends on who you ask. For Midland, it’s a rounding error. They probably paid less than $500 for both accounts combined. For Tamara, it might as well be a down payment on a house. But the real cost here isn’t the money—it’s the system. A woman in Oklahoma is being sued by a company in California, represented by a non-lawyer in Minnesota, using records no one has seen, over debts from two banks that have already moved on. The whole thing feels less like justice and more like a shell game with interest.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t that someone’s being sued for two grand. It’s that this is completely normal. This is how debt collection works in 2025: faceless, automated, and utterly detached from the human beings at the center of it. We’re not rooting for Tamara because she definitely paid her bills. We don’t know that. We’re not rooting for Midland because they bought the debt “legally.” We don’t care. We’re rooting for the idea that if you’re going to sue someone, you should at least send a real lawyer who lives in the same time zone. That you shouldn’t win a judgment based on an affidavit signed in Stearns County, Minnesota, for a debt incurred in Beaver County, Oklahoma, by a woman who might not even know this is happening.

But hey, that’s America. Where the coffee is strong, the credit is weaker, and the debt collectors are always watching—even from 700 miles away.

Case Overview

$2,651 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Grisel Lopez Pena

Relief Sought

$2,651 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Midland Credit Management, Inc. business
Rep: Grisel Lopez Pena

Defendants

Tamara K. Hutchison individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Petition for Indebtedness	collection of debt
2	Petition for Indebtedness	collection of debt

Petition Text

1,169 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BEAVER COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA Midland Credit Management, Inc. Plaintiff, vs. Tamara K Hutchison, Defendant. No. CS-2026-5 PETITION FOR INDEBTEDNESS COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorneys who hereby enter their appearance herein, and for cause of action against Defendant alleges and states: COUNT I 1. FIRST ELECTRONIC BANK, provided credit to the defendant on account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0140. Defendant defaulted on the obligation. The account has been assigned to Plaintiff. 2. Defendant owes Plaintiff $1,095.09. An Affidavit of Account is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. COUNT 2 1. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., provided credit to the defendant on account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0066. Defendant defaulted on the obligation. The account has been assigned to Plaintiff. 2. Defendant owes Plaintiff $1,556.22. An Affidavit of Account is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against the Defendant in the sum of $2,651.31, with interest at the statutory rate, all court costs, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. STATE OF OKLAHOMA Midland Credit Management, Inc, Plaintiff -vs- Hutchison, Tamara K, Defendant(s). AFFIDAVIT OF GRISEL LOPEZ PENA Grisel Lopez Pena, whose business address is 600 W. Saint Germain St Suite 200, St. Cloud, MN 56301-3616, certifies and says: 1. I am employed as a Legal Specialist and have access to pertinent account records for Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "MCM"). I am a competent person over eighteen years of age, and make the statements herein based upon personal knowledge of those account records maintained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is the current owner of, and was assigned all the rights, title and interest to Defendant's FIRST ELECTRONIC BANK/DESTINY account XXXXXXXXXXXXXX0140 (MCM Number 326260217) (hereinafter "the Account"). 2. I have access to and have reviewed the electronic records pertaining to the Account maintained by MCM and am authorized to make this affidavit on MCM's behalf. The electronic records reviewed consist of (i) data and records acquired from the seller or assignor when MCM purchased or was assigned the Account, which were incorporated into MCM's business records upon purchase or assignment, and (ii) data and records generated by MCM in connection with servicing the Account since the date the Account was purchased by or was assigned to MCM. 3. I am familiar with and trained on the manner and method by which MCM creates and maintains its business records pertaining to the Account, which consist of (i) data and documents acquired from the seller or assignor, and (ii) subsequent collection and/or servicing activities by MCM. The records are acquired or created, and are kept in the regular course of MCM's business. It was in the regular course of MCM's business for a person with knowledge of the subsequent collection and/or servicing activities recorded, and a business duty to report, to make the record or data compilation, or to transmit information thereof to be included in such record, or for such information to be posted in MCM's records by a computer or similar digital means. In the regular course of MCM's business, the record or compilation of the subsequent collection activities is made at or near the time of the act or event by MCM as a regular practice. 4. MCM's records show that Defendant(s) owed a balance of $1,095.09 as of 2025-11-03. 5. On or about 2024-02-27, Midland Credit Management, Inc became the successor in interest to this Account. 6. MCM's records show that: 1) the Account was opened on 2023-03-26; 2) the last payment posted to the Account on 2023-08-11; and 3) the Account was charged off on 2024-01-16. 7. If called to testify as a witness thereon, I could and would competently testify as to all the facts stated herein. Left Blank Intentionally I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. NOV 21 2025 Date STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF STEARNS Grisel Lopez Pena Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on NOV 21 2025 by Grisel Lopez Pena. Emily Ann Walker Notary Public - Minnesota My Commission Expires 01/31/2027 Notary Public OK038 STATE OF OKLAHOMA Midland Credit Management, Inc, Plaintiff -vs- AFFIDAVIT OF GRISEL LOPEZ PENA Hutchison, Tamara, Defendant(s). Grisel Lopez Pena, whose business address is 600 W. Saint Germain St Suite 200, St. Cloud, MN 56301-3616, certifies and says: 1. I am employed as a Legal Specialist and have access to pertinent account records for Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "MCM"). I am a competent person over eighteen years of age, and make the statements herein based upon personal knowledge of those account records maintained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is the current owner of, and was assigned all the rights, title and interest to Defendant's CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. account XXXXXXXXXXXX0066 (MCM Number 326790902) (hereinafter "the Account"). 2. I have access to and have reviewed the electronic records pertaining to the Account maintained by MCM and am authorized to make this affidavit on MCM's behalf. The electronic records reviewed consist of (i) data and records acquired from the seller or assignor when MCM purchased or was assigned the Account, which were incorporated into MCM's business records upon purchase or assignment, and (ii) data and records generated by MCM in connection with servicing the Account since the date the Account was purchased by or was assigned to MCM. 3. I am familiar with and trained on the manner and method by which MCM creates and maintains its business records pertaining to the Account, which consist of (i) data and documents acquired from the seller or assignor, and (ii) subsequent collection and/or servicing activities by MCM. The records are acquired or created, and are kept in the regular course of MCM's business. It was in the regular course of MCM's business for a person with knowledge of the subsequent collection and/or servicing activities recorded, and a business duty to report, to make the record or data compilation, or to transmit information thereof to be included in such record, or for such information to be posted in MCM's records by a computer or similar digital means. In the regular course of MCM's business, the record or compilation of the subsequent collection activities is made at or near the time of the act or event by MCM as a regular practice. 4. MCM's records show that Defendant(s) owed a balance of $1,556.22 as of 2025-11-03. 5. On or about 2024-04-17, Midland Credit Management, Inc became the successor in interest to this Account. 6. MCM's records show that: 1) the Account was opened on 2023-03-16; 2) the last payment posted to the Account on 2023-09-08; and 3) the Account was charged off on 2024-03-29. 7. If called to testify as a witness thereon, I could and would competently testify as to all the facts stated herein. Left Blank Intentionally I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. NOV 21 2025 Date Grisel Lopez Pena STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF STEARNS Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on NOV 21 2025 by Grisel Lopez Pena. Emily Ann Walker Notary Public - Minnesota My Commission Expires 01/31/2027 Emily Walker Notary Public