A summary of this week’s top cases. Editor’s note: This content is available for members only.
5/22/2020 9:30
Each week, ACA International’s Compliance Analysts Laura Dadd and Andrew Pavlik compile relevant case summaries for ACA members. Here is a recap of the cases this week. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Fax to Consumer’s Attorney Not Actionable under the FDCPA and Letter to Consumer did not Require Time-Barred Debt Notice
The debt collector in this case sent the consumer’s attorney a fax, which stated:
I am contacting your office on behalf of Mat-Su Regional Medical Center … I am checking on the status of the case for [the consumer] … The patient/client treated on 12/17/14 and has an outstanding balance with the hospital of $5,121.64 … I spoke with Allstate and I was advised that the claim/case settled with the patient in June 2017 … Please verify if the patient needs to be contacted for the balance or is the case still ongoing with your office?
Roughly a month later, the debt collector sent the consumer a letter titled “RE: Mat-Su Regional Medical Center,” and stating, “Per your request, this is to advise you that your current balance is $5121.64.”10 The letter added in bold font: “This is an attempt to collect a debt by a debt collector. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”
The consumer filed suit against the debt collector claiming three violations of the FDCPA between the two communications: (1) false or misleading representations; (2) failure to disclose; and (3) time-barred debt collection.
Collection Letter did not Require an Out of Statute Notice
In 2011, a consumer incurred two medical debts and she fell behind on payments, leading the creditor to send the account to collections. The debt collectors sent the consumer a letter, dated Aug. 15, 2018, stating:
“Attached is an itemized statement that you requested regarding the above identified debt that has been placed in our office for collection by the current creditor. This statement may not reflect payments made either by you or any insurance company after the service date. Please, contact me once you receive this information to discuss further.”
The letter is signed by Matthew Richardson, Collections Representative, and provides his telephone number. The bottom of the letter contains the statement that “[t]hiis an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This is a communication from a debt collector.”
District Court Finds No Misrepresentation of Attorney Involvement
In this case, a law firm filed an action in state court against a consumer to collect a defaulted credit card debt. The consumer did not challenge the judgment in the case, but she filed suit against the law firm, alleging that the firm violated § 1692e(3) of FDCPA by falsely implying that the lawyer who signed the complaint was meaningfully involved in assessing the merits of the claim. Notably, records of the defendant indicated the attorney who signed the complaint spent six minutes reviewing the documents before deciding to file suit. The consumer contended that if she had known the attorney had only spent six minutes reviewing her case, she would have disputed the debt or consulted with a lawyer.
Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more case summaries and news. ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.
For more information on how the ACA Licensing staff can assist with your licensing needs, please contact us at [email protected] or call (952) 926-6547.
ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.