A summary of this week’s top cases. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
7/24/2020 9:00
Each week, ACA International’s Compliance Analysts Betsy Clarke, Laura Dadd, 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].
Letter may be Confusing to Unsophisticated Consumer
The consumer received a letter which stated in part: “YOU HAVE AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF 171.00 OWED TO AT&T. IN AN EFFORT TO HELP YOU RESOLVE THIS MATTER WE AGREE TO OFFER YOU A SETTLEMENT OF $119.70. TO ACCEPT THIS OFFER PLEASE SEND PAYMENT OF $119.70. IF YOU ARE NOT PAYING THIS ACCOUNT, CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY REGARDING OUR POTENTIAL REMEDIES, AND YOUR DEFENSES, OR CALL (888) 215-8961.”
The consumer filed a class action complaint against the debt collector, claiming that the letter falsely threatened a potential lawsuit and that the letter made a false threat of litigation. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.
Procedural Mishap by State Court Cannot be the Basis for a FDCPA Claim
A federal district court found the action of a county court in issuing and then quashing a writ of garnishment (1) did not violate the FDCPA because it was a procedural mishap and not debt collection activity under the FDCPA, and (2) did not violate state collection or consumer protection laws because the conduct at issue did not occur in trade or commerce.
Debt collectors obtained summary judgment against husband and wife consumers in county court and applied for a writ of garnishment. The consumers moved to quash the writ on the basis that the judgment was not final because their counterclaims involving the FDCPA were still pending; the county court agreed, quashed the writ of garnishment, and then ruled against the consumers during a bench trial, finding the debt collectors did not violate the FDCPA.
The consumers filed a new lawsuit in federal court claiming the debt collectors violated the FDCPA, the Washington consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”), and the Washington Collection Agency Act (“WCAA”) when the debt collectors obtained the writ of garnishment from the county court before there was a final judgment in the underlying debt collection.
Consumer was not Entitled to Class Certification on her Claim that Repetitive Language in a Collection Letter Violated the FDCPA
A federal district court found that “repetitive” language in collection letter did not overshadow 1692g(a) notice; that abbreviation of agency’s name in collection letter did not violate 1692e(14); and that “conditional language” regarding fees could not be deemed to be false or misleading (or not false or misleading) as a matter of law. (Emphasis added.)
The consumer sued the agency seeking class certification and alleging multiple violations of the FDCPA based her receipt of a collection letter.
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.