A summary of this week’s top cases. Editor’s note: This content is available for members only.
6/5/2020 11:00
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].
Court Denies Discovery Request
The consumer received a letter from the debt collector requesting payment for medical services that she had received. The letter stated that the consumer had 30 days to dispute the debt listed in the letter. The consumer called the debt collector and asked when the payment was due. The debt collector allegedly responded that the payment was already due. The consumer filed a lawsuit against the debt collector claiming that this statement overshadowed her validation period. The debt collector filed a motion asking the court to stay the consumer’s motion until the parties could conduct discovery. The debt collector wanted to, depose the consumer, and obtain written discovery as to “her alleged beliefs and feelings, and as to her allegation that Defendant provided a deadline within the thirty-day dispute period.” The debt collector also requested, “discovery as to the circumstances surrounding the telephone call, including the identification of all individuals (including attorneys) present during the call, and instructions or scripts utilized during the call.” Finally, the debt collector wanted to depose the consumer’s bankruptcy attorney, who was supposedly retained prior to the phone call in question.
Court Refuses to Dismiss FDCPA Suit Involving Garnishment
The consumer owed a debt which the creditor hired a debt collector to collect. The debt collector obtained a judgment against the consumer to collect the debt. The debt collector communicated with the consumer via email and stated that, “Upon receipt of $1,663.66 in this office on or before Feb. 22, 2019, you will be released from further obligation in the above-referenced matter, and your account will be marked as paid in full.” The consumer alleges that she sent a cashier’s check by overnight mail to the debt collector on February 19, 2019 and it was delivered on Feb. 20, 2019. Despite the payment, which the debt collector does not dispute, the consumer received a notice that her wages would be garnished.
Court Finds Linked Pages in Emailed Collection Notice are Part of the “Whole” Notice
In Zuniga v. TrueAccord, a debt collector sent the consumer a collection notice via email, which included a link to a second page containing three different payment plans to pay off the balance of $1,585. The first option offered three installments of $529, the second option offered six installments of $265, and the third option offered nine installments of $177. Each of these payment options included another link to a separate page which provided additional information about the specific payment option.
Without clicking on any of the links associated with each payment plan, the consumer used a calculator to total the payment amounts of each plan, and determined that they all added up to more than the balance of the account, ranging from $2 to $8. However, the consumer never clicked any of the links associated with each payment option. Notably, in the subsequent pages associated with the payment plans, each plan had equal payment installments except for the final payment, which was slightly lower, meaning the consumer would not pay more than the actual balance of the debt. Also of note, the consumer admitted she never intended to accept any of the payment options.
Ninth Circuit Holds “Called Party” is the Current Subscriber to the Number
Over several months, a bank and its vendors (defendant) placed 189 automated calls to a minor’s cell phone. The defendant was trying to collect past-due payments from a consumer, but, unbeknownst to the defendant, the consumer’s cell phone number had been reassigned to different individual (plaintiff), who in turn had let her son use the phone as his own. The plaintiff sued for the unwelcome calls, alleging the calls violated the TCPA’s ban on autodialed calls to wireless numbers. The district court found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
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.