Roosen Varchetti & Olivier Reviews and Complaints: What the Record Shows and What to Do (2026)

Who Roosen Varchetti & Olivier is

Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC is a Michigan law firm organized as a professional limited liability company. The BBB lists its address as 39541 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, MI 48038, in Macomb County, with a business start date of November 30, 2006. The BBB names Paul E. Varchetti as founder and managing partner. Some court captions spell the name Oliver.

The firm's website, rvolaw.com, is a payment and help portal. It gives separate contact lines by state: for Michigan accounts (844) 871-3126 or (586) 868-2737 and attorneys@rvolaw.com, and for Georgia accounts (844) 833-0033 or (404) 458-0123 and gaattorneys@rvolaw.com.

The BBB describes the business as one that represents creditors in collecting outstanding receivables. The National Creditors Bar Association lists the firm as a member since 2012, with these practice areas: auto loans, commercial collections, credit cards, government and tax, judgment enforcement, residential lease deficiencies after eviction, residential tenant eviction and student loans. The same listing names Georgia as an additional state where the firm is licensed.

Georgia work appears in the record through a Georgia entity whose name adds GA to the firm's name. That entity is the defendant in several 2018 federal cases in Georgia. A FindLaw directory listing gives an Atlanta address at 3520 Piedmont Road; we did not confirm it with a Georgia state record.

In the court records we read, the firm's clients included Credit Acceptance Corporation, an auto finance company, and two debt buyers, Web Equity and Main Street Acquisitions. In one federal case it was sued together with Cavalry SPV I, LLC, a debt buyer. In the sources checked, it presents itself as a law firm working for creditors, not as a lender, funder or debt buyer.

The public record at a glance

• BBB rating and accreditation. A plus, BBB accredited since July 23, 2026, as checked on November 12, 2026. The BBB file was opened on January 5, 2011.
• BBB complaints. 10 in the last three years, as of November 12, 2026. The BBB page did not display the 12 month count or the complaint details when we checked.
• BBB customer reviews. Four reviews, as of November 12, 2026. The average and the review texts were not displayed when we checked.
• CFPB complaint database. 152 complaints filed under the company name "Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC", received from February 2014 to September 2026, as of November 12, 2026. 73 of them were received in the three years before that date and 31 in the last 12 months. 134 are filed under debt collection.
• Federal enforcement. A search of the CFPB's enforcement actions on November 12, 2026 returned no action naming the firm. We found no federal or Michigan Attorney General enforcement action against it in the sources checked.
• Federal lawsuits naming the firm. CourtListener shows 42 federal dockets with Roosen and Varchetti in the case name, including bankruptcy court cases, 3 of them filed since November 12, 2023. Being named in a lawsuit is not proof of wrongdoing.

A complaint count is not a finding. Read the numbers as a map of what people dispute, not as a verdict.

What the complaints say

The CFPB data shows what consumers most often report. The top issue labels are "attempts to collect debt not owed" (40 complaints), "took or threatened to take negative or legal action" (38), "written notification about debt" (18), "false statements or representation" (16) and "communication tactics" (8).

Within debt collection, 36 complaints are tagged as credit card debt, 29 as auto debt, 19 as student loan debt (17 of them private loans) and 29 as "I do not know". Six more complaints are filed under the separate student loan product, all private loans.

Michigan accounts for 90 of the 152 complaints and Georgia for 50. The company response is "closed with explanation" on all 152, and 151 were marked as answered on time.

Two practical points. Keep proof of every payment, dispute and court paper, with dates. And if you are sued or garnished on a debt that is not yours, act on the court papers right away.

Lawsuits and court decisions

Here is what we could confirm about four federal decisions involving the firm, along with recent filings.

• Washington v. Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver (W.D. Mich. No. 1:11-cv-945, September 17, 2012, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1015). Two consumers filed a proposed class action against the firm and two debt buyers, Web Equity and Main Street Acquisitions. They alleged that collection suits the firm filed in 2010 in Michigan district courts included a count accusing each debtor of fraud in applying for a credit card, and a statement that the debtor had the written agreement, both without a factual basis. On motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the claim under the FDCPA's disgrace provision, which it treated as waived, and the claim based on the written instrument statements, and denied the motions as to all other claims. These were allegations, not findings, and we did not review how the case ended.
• Comer v. Roosen Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC (E.D. Mich. No. 17-13218, November 1, 2018). A consumer sued the firm and Cavalry SPV I, LLC under the FDCPA. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. We could not see the full opinion, so this page does not say which claims went forward.
• Roe v. Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC (E.D. Mich. No. 18-13536, April 15, 2020). The firm had obtained a judgment for Credit Acceptance in 2015 against a debtor named Angela Roe and in 2018 obtained a writ of garnishment naming the employer of a different woman with the same name. The employer caught the mismatch and filed an amended disclosure, and the plaintiff's wages were never garnished. The court granted summary judgment to the firm on the FDCPA claims under the bona fide error defense, finding that it reasonably relied on employment information verified by its client, and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.
• Eickenroth v. Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver, PLLC (E.D. Mich. No. 20-11647, March 31, 2021). Two people served in person with the firm's collection suit in May 2020, during Michigan's COVID orders, sued under the FDCPA and Michigan's Regulation of Collection Practices Act and proposed a class. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of standing, and denied the class motion as moot.
• Recent filings. Three federal cases with the firm in the caption were filed from November 12, 2023 to November 12, 2026, all in the Eastern District of Michigan: Castro (No. 2:24-cv-10400, coded consumer credit, dismissed by order in May 2024), Nesbitt (No. 2:26-cv-10333) and Ritsema (No. 2:26-cv-13531, filed September 17, 2026). In Nesbitt, a plaintiff without a lawyer sued the firm and three court clerks, alleging among other things that a garnishment writ issued without a judge's signature. The record shows Credit Acceptance, represented by the firm, sued him in 2022 on a car loan balance left after a repossession sale, a default judgment was entered for Credit Acceptance in January 2023, and the judgment was later paid in full. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal, and the docket shows an order granting it on June 30, 2026. We read only docket information for Castro and Ritsema, so this page does not describe their claims.

Put plainly: the firm sues for creditors and debt buyers, it has been sued, and none of the court decisions we read in full is a finding of wrongdoing against it. Read its paperwork carefully, and do not ignore it.

Why the firm is contacting you or your business

Usually because a creditor or a debt buyer has placed an account with it. On the consumer side, the CFPB data and the cases we read point to credit cards and auto loans, with student loans next. In the records we read, the accounts described were credit cards and auto loans, and we found no public case in which the firm sued on a business loan or a merchant cash advance.

A business owner can still hear from the firm in several ways. The account may be a personal card or car loan used for the business. It may be a business card or a commercial account that you are personally liable for under the agreement. Or a creditor may have placed a commercial account with the firm under its commercial collections work. If you signed a personal guarantee, a creditor may be able to pursue you as well as the company.

A letter from a law firm can come before suit, during a lawsuit, or after a judgment, when the work shifts to garnishment of wages, bank accounts or other property. The letter, the summons or the court notice tells you which stage you are in. Read it before you call.

Your rights: which rules apply to which debt

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to consumer debts. The statute defines a debt as an obligation arising from a transaction that is primarily for personal, family or household purposes. For a consumer debt, you can dispute the debt in writing and ask for verification within the window stated in the first notice. Once you dispute in writing within that window, the collector must pause collection of the disputed amount until it mails verification.

A business debt is generally outside the FDCPA. A business credit card, a business loan or a supplier account is usually a commercial obligation, even when the owner signed a personal guarantee. Contract terms and court rules still apply.

Michigan's Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MCL 445.251 and following) draws the same line. As the statute reads on November 12, 2026, it defines a claim or debt as an obligation arising out of an agreement "for a purchase made primarily for personal, family, or household purposes," and a consumer or debtor as an individual obligated to pay such a debt. Its list of regulated persons includes an attorney handling a claim or collection on behalf of a client and in the attorney's own name, so a law firm collecting a consumer debt can be covered. We found nothing in its definitions that reaches a debt incurred for business purposes. If your debt is commercial, do not count on this act, and ask a Michigan lawyer what does apply.

Personal guarantees. A guarantee is a separate promise by you to pay the company's debt. Michigan's statute of frauds generally requires a promise to answer for the debt of another person to be in writing and signed by the person to be charged. Find the application or agreement and read the section on liability before you respond.

What to check in your own paperwork

• Who the creditor is. The letter or summons should name the creditor. Ask in writing whether it is the original lender or a buyer, and if a buyer, ask it to show that it owns the account.
• Which person or entity owes it. Is the account in the company's name, your name, or both? Look for a signed guarantee or a clause making you jointly liable.
• The balance and how it was built. Ask for an itemized statement: principal, interest, fees, any repossession sale proceeds and any payments credited. Compare it with your own records.
• An affidavit with the complaint. In a Michigan suit on an open account or an account stated, the creditor's sworn statement of the amount due is treated as prima facie evidence unless you serve your own denial affidavit with your answer. If one came with your papers, ask a lawyer about the counter affidavit right away.
• Whether a suit or judgment already exists. Check the district court in the county where you live or where the business operates. If a judgment exists, get its date, amount and case number.
• Time limits. Note the date of your last payment and the date of the first missed payment. Michigan's general limit for a breach of contract claim is 6 years from when the claim accrues, and some contracts fall under different rules. A lawyer can tell you which one applies and when it started.
• Who you are dealing with. Use only the phone numbers and addresses on the firm's own website or on court papers,.

If a lawsuit has been filed

The plaintiff will be the creditor or debt buyer, with Roosen Varchetti & Olivier as its lawyers. In Michigan, the state's legal help site says you have 21 days to respond to a complaint you were personally handed, and 28 days if you got it in the mail or were served outside Michigan. If you do not respond within the time allowed, the same site says, the court won't require the creditor to prove anything, and a default judgment can follow.

A judgment changes the picture. Michigan allows 10 years to bring an action on a judgment of a court of record of the state, and the Nesbitt record shows a garnishment writ issued after a default. If a default has already been entered, Michigan Legal Help explains how to ask the court to set it aside with a motion and an affidavit. Some income can be protected from garnishment, so read every notice for exemption instructions.

If the suit was filed in Georgia, Georgia's rules and deadlines apply instead.

Ask a lawyer whether your business can appear in court without one, and ask the same question about a personal guarantee. Responding on time does not rule out settling. This page is general information, not legal advice. If you have been sued, talk to a lawyer licensed in the state where the case was filed.

Can a balance the firm is collecting be settled?

Sometimes. Whether a balance can be settled depends on the creditor and on the documents. The firm's website invites people to review payment options online or speak with a representative. Michigan Legal Help notes that if you reach an agreement, you can sign a consent judgment or agree to a dismissal, and should check with the court whether a hearing is still needed so a default is not entered while you talk.

Whatever you agree, get it in writing before you pay: the amount, the schedule, and that it settles the account in full. If there is a lawsuit, the agreement should say how the case ends, for example a dismissal with prejudice. If there is a judgment, ask how and when the satisfaction will be filed, and then check that any garnishment has been released, as the court record shows it was in Nesbitt.

Business Debt Adjusters negotiates business debt, including business credit cards, business loans and merchant cash advances. We review the agreement, the guarantee, the balance and any court filings, and we tell you what is realistic before you commit to anything. If several debts are pressing at once, see how business debt settlement works and business credit card debt relief. If a merchant cash advance is part of the picture, see how MCA debt relief works, whether a merchant cash advance is a loan, and settlement versus bankruptcy. For the record of a debt buyer that was sued alongside this firm in Michigan, see our Cavalry Portfolio Services review, and for another debt buyer's record, our LVNV Funding LLC reviews and complaints page.

Sources

• Roosen Varchetti & Olivier PLLC, rvolaw.com (payment portal; Michigan and Georgia contact lines)
• Better Business Bureau, Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC profile (A plus, accredited since 7/23/2026, business started 11/30/2006, Paul E Varchetti)
• Better Business Bureau, complaints (10 in 3 years)
• Better Business Bureau, customer reviews (4 reviews)
• National Creditors Bar Association, law firm directory (member since 2012, practice areas, Georgia)
• FindLaw directory listing (Atlanta address)
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Complaint Database, company: Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC (152 complaints, 2014 to 2026)
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, enforcement actions search for Roosen (no results)
• CourtListener federal docket search, case name Roosen AND Varchetti (42 dockets; 3 filed since November 12, 2023)
• Washington v. Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (W.D. Mich. 2012), via CourtListener
• Comer v. Roosen Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC, No. 17-13218 (E.D. Mich. November 1, 2018), via Leagle
• Roe v. Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC, No. 18-13536 (E.D. Mich.), order of April 15, 2020
• Eickenroth v. Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver, PLLC, No. 20-11647 (E.D. Mich.), opinion of March 31, 2021
• Nesbitt v. Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC, No. 26-10333 (E.D. Mich.), report and recommendation of June 2, 2026 and order of June 30, 2026
• MCL 445.251, Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act definitions
• MCL 566.132, Michigan statute of frauds (promise to answer for the debt of another)
• MCL 600.2145, affidavit on an open account or account stated
• MCL 600.5807, limitations for contract actions (6 years)
• MCL 600.5809, limitations for actions on judgments (10 years)
• Michigan Legal Help, going to court to defend a debt collection case (21 and 28 day deadlines, consent judgment)
• Michigan Legal Help, setting aside a default or default judgment in a debt collection case
• 15 U.S.C. 1692a, FDCPA definitions of consumer, debt and debt collector
• 15 U.S.C. 1692g, FDCPA validation of debts (collection pauses after a timely written dispute until verification)

Facts on this page were checked against the linked sources on November 12, 2026. Business Debt Adjusters is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized to represent the company described.