Whether the Utah State Supreme Court erred in affirming the Utah Court of Appeals in denying that a specific remedy exists for a citizen to challenge unfair debt collection practices committed by a state debt collection agency

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Utah State Courts in this case evaluated Petitioner Kevin Singson’s claim that the Utah Office of State Debt Collections collected a wage claim which the state had no statutory authority to collect. The debt was not owed to the state and was not owed by Singson. The debt was owed by a corporation to a former employee of the corporation. Singson brought his case in state court alleging an improper and unfair debt collection. Singson did not misplace his case as a federal claim in federal court under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (““FDCPA”) and maintained throughout that there were “no other plain speedy and adequate remedies.” However, the state courts would not address unfair debt collection practices as a cognizable state claim, and the Utah Court of Appeals used an ostensible briefing deficiency as pretext to deny Singson his day in court. Utah’s skirting the issue highlights an urgent need for a fair and equitable playing field when state run collection agencies wield governmental powers over the citizenry as consumers to collect debts. In this case the state is indeed collecting the debt “of another” (wage claim) —giving rise to the questions presented as follows: 1) Whether the Utah State Supreme Court erred in affirming the Utah Court of Appeals in denying that a specific remedy exists for a citizen to challenge unfair debt collection practices committed by a state debt collection agency? 2) Are alleged abusive collection practices committed by a governmental debt collector, such as the State’s Attorney General, subject to review by state courts under extraordinary writ proceedings when the administrative procedures themselves are the abuse complained of? i