The Squeeze: Primary Documents¶

The university billed Kevin aggressively for five months — billing statements, late fees, two "FINAL" notices threatening collections within 30 days. Kevin disputed in writing. The institution never responded, never followed through on its own deadlines, and went completely silent for fifteen months. Then Kevin filed a federal civil rights lawsuit. Thirty-five days later, the university sent the account to a collection agency.

These are the original financial documents, collection notices, and institutional responses — in chronological order.

Primary Documents¶

Billing Ledger — Spring 2024 (TPIA response) — 3 pages. The actual transaction-by-transaction account history showing the reversal-disbursement-rebilling sequence.

Billing Statements — Jan–Apr 2024 (TPIA response) — 16 pages. Five months of billing statements, past-due notices, and account holds — then silence.

Balance Notification Letter — March 20, 2024 — TTUHSC acknowledged the $24,366.56 balance and placed a hold.

"FINAL NOTICE PRIOR TO COLLECTION" — March 26, 2024 — 30-day deadline. They did not follow through.

"FINAL BILL Prior to COLLECTIONS" — April 19, 2024 — Second 30-day deadline. They did not follow through.

Internal Collection Policy (TPIA response) — 3 pages. TTUHSC produced this defensively to justify the collection referral. It says collections begin "within 30 days." They set that deadline twice in 2024 and did not follow through either time.

February 12, 2024 — The Balance Is Created¶

Two months after the dismissal, the Financial Aid office sent this letter. The scholarship was cancelled, the loan was returned to the federal government, and Kevin was left with a $24,316.56 balance.

The letter says Kevin "withdrawn." He did not withdraw. He was dismissed. The university processed the dismissal as a withdrawal for Title IV purposes, cancelled his scholarship, returned his loan to the government, and billed him the difference.

What the Billing Records Actually Show¶

The Mullins letter frames the balance as a routine Title IV withdrawal calculation. The actual billing ledger — obtained through a public records request — tells a different story.

The sequence: On December 4 — exactly one month after the emergency removal — TTUHSC reversed all of Kevin's Spring 2024 tuition charges. But the financial aid disbursement pipeline was not stopped. Three weeks later, his scholarship and federal loan disbursed on schedule into an account with no charges. The entire disbursement — $21,448 — was refunded to Kevin as excess aid.

Then, in January, the institution re-charged full tuition, pulled back the scholarship, and pulled back the loan. Kevin now owed $24,366 with no financial aid applied.

The institution created this debt through its own administrative sequencing. It reversed the charges, let the aid flow through as a refund, then re-billed without restoring the aid. The Mullins letter described none of this. It said Kevin "withdrawn."

January – April 2024 — Five Months of Active Billing¶

The Mullins letter was not a one-time notice. It was the beginning of a five-month billing campaign. TTUHSC sent repeated billing statements, applied late fees, and issued two separate "FINAL" notices threatening collection — each with a 30-day deadline.

Two "FINAL" notices. Two 30-day deadlines. The institution was actively pursuing this balance.

May 29, 2024 — Kevin Disputes in Writing¶

After the second "FINAL" deadline passed with no action, Kevin sent a written dispute to TTUHSC's Financial Aid office:

TTUHSC did not respond. It did not correct the withdrawal characterization. It did not adjust the balance. It did not send the account to collections. It simply stopped.

May 2024 – October 2025 — Fifteen Months of Silence¶

After five months of active billing and two "FINAL" notices, the institution went completely silent. No response to Kevin's dispute. No more billing statements. No collection referral. The $24,366.56 balance sat dormant for fifteen months.

During this period:

• Kevin completed his PhD and was awarded a doctorate by TTUHSC (2024)
• Kevin filed TPIA requests for his student records (October 2025)
• TTUHSC quoted him $1,800+ to copy his own education records
• Kevin filed preservation notices and cost complaints

November 5, 2025 — The Federal Lawsuit¶

Kevin Bass filed suit in the Northern District of Texas. Seven claims against eleven defendants — First Amendment retaliation, disability discrimination, due process violations. Case No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV.

December 10, 2025 — Thirty-Five Days Later¶

TTUHSC issued a "Final Account Statement" and referred the account to Williams & Fudge, Inc., a third-party collection agency based in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

The balance had grown from $24,366.56 to $30,458.20. No interest was charged. The additional $6,091.64 was labeled "Fees" — with no breakdown, no authority cited, and no explanation of how they were calculated.

The math: $6,091.64 ÷ $24,366.56 = exactly 25%. This is a collection agency percentage markup applied to the principal — not an institutional charge for services rendered. Kevin asked for the authority and line-item breakdown in six written communications. Neither TTUHSC nor Williams & Fudge ever provided one.

Five months of active billing. Two "FINAL" notices. A written dispute. Then fifteen months of silence. Then a federal lawsuit. Then — thirty-five days later — collections.

December 15, 2025 — Kevin Disputes Immediately¶

Within two hours of receiving the NoticeDrop notification, Kevin filed a written dispute with the collection agency. By the next morning, he had also disputed directly with TTUHSC.

Over the next 24 hours, Kevin also:

• Forwarded the dispute to named TTUHSC staff (Tabitha Baines, Karrie Anderson)
• Requested enrollment verification from the Registrar
• Called Student Business Services and was told the matter would be forwarded to Patricia Castillo
• Filed a second written confirmation request with Williams & Fudge

Six communications in 24 hours. All in writing. All requesting the same thing: show me what I owe and why.

December 16, 2025 — Kevin Sends a Formal Dispute via FedEx¶

Not trusting email alone, Kevin sent a signed dispute letter to Williams & Fudge via FedEx with signature required.

December 18, 2025 — The Collection Agency Writes¶

Williams & Fudge sent their initial collection notice. The FDCPA-required disclosure confirmed the amount and gave Kevin until February 1, 2026 to dispute.

Kevin had already disputed — three days before this letter arrived.

December 19, 2025 — TTUHSC's Response¶

Four days after the dispute. Six written communications. One phone call. The institution's response:

Kevin had already filed the dispute with Williams & Fudge — four days earlier. Baines either did not read his emails or did not care. Instead of providing the itemized ledger Kevin requested, or pausing collections, or recalling the referral, the institution told him to take it up with the agency.

December 19, 2025 — The "Verification"¶

The same day Baines sent her response, Williams & Fudge claimed the debt was verified. The attached verification letter was signed by Patricia Castillo, Senior Analyst at TTUHSC.

Kevin asked four specific questions: What is the basis for the balance? How were the fees calculated? What terms and enrollment dates are you relying on? What authority supports the fees?

The "verification" answered none of them. Castillo signed a form letter confirming the number was correct. No itemization. No fee breakdown. No enrollment dates. No authority cited. Just: the balance is accurate.

December 19, 2025 — Kevin Files a TPIA Request¶

The same day, Kevin filed a Texas Public Information Act request targeting the collection decision itself — requesting the internal emails, collection placement packet, and Williams & Fudge contract.

What Their Own Policy Says¶

When Kevin filed his TPIA request for the collection records, TTUHSC produced its internal collection policy. They released it defensively — to suggest they followed standard procedure. Read it:

The policy says collections begin "within 30 days." TTUHSC issued that exact 30-day warning twice — on March 26 and April 19, 2024. Both deadlines passed. The institution did not follow through. Kevin disputed on May 29. The institution went silent for fifteen months. Then Kevin filed a federal lawsuit. Then — and only then — collections began.

The institution produced this document to show it did nothing wrong. The document shows the opposite: they had a policy, they threatened to enforce it twice, they didn't, they waited for a lawsuit, and then they did.

The Pattern¶

They billed actively for five months. They threatened collections twice. Kevin disputed. They stopped. They didn't respond to the dispute. They didn't adjust the balance. They didn't follow through on their own deadlines. Fifteen months later, Kevin sued. Thirty-five days after that, they followed through.

Related Pages¶

• The Paper Trail — The institution's own emails, from "obviously protected speech" to emergency removal
• Building the Case — How the complaints were manufactured
• The Hearing — From emergency removal through the fourteen-hour hearing to dismissal
• The Recordings — 25 hours of audio — what the institution claimed versus what the recordings show
• Court Filings — Download the complaint and response to motion to dismiss
• Collection Dispute Thread — Full 13-email correspondence sequence
• TPIA Request for Collection Records — Public records request targeting the collection decision
• The Squeeze (narrative) — Chapter 4 of the case story