A federal judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin has certified a class action lawsuit alleging a collection agency violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not more clearly defining what it meant when it told an individual in a collection letter that she could settle her account if she acted “promptly.”
The plaintiff in the case, Deborah Al, received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter included the following passage:
You can settle your account with the above client for lees than the full amount you owe.
The balance you owe as of the date of this letter is $462.31. Presently, we are willing to accept $277.39 to settle your account provided that you act promptly. We are not obligated to renew this offer.
During discovery, it was revealed that 180 different individuals were sent letters with the same language. The proposed class (Al v. Van Ru Credit Corporation) includes individuals who are:
- (a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin
- (b) who were sent a collection letter in the form represented by Exhibit A to the complaint in this action
- (c) seeking to collect a debt allegedly owed for personal, family or household purposes
- (d) between December 13, 2016 and December 13, 2017
- (e) that was not returned by the postal service.
The judge in this case, J.P. Stadtmueller, did not have much appreciation for the defendant’s sole argument that the FDCPA applies to only “personal, family, or household purposes” and the only way to ascertain that is to inquire about how each individual incurred his or her particular debt.
“If Defendant’s view were correct, then no FDCPA class actions would exist, because each one requires at least a minimal individualized assessment of the nature of each class member’s debt,” wrote Judge Stadtmueller in his ruling granting class certification. “Defendant also accuses Plaintiff of failing to establish that her own debt was incurred for household purposes. This is a curious position, as her affidavit testimony says precisely that.”
Testimony from the defendant’s compliance director that settlement offers are kept open indefinitely rendered the word “promptly” misleading, the judge ruled.
The defense also tried to use another lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against a different collection agency as proof that she is not an adequate class representative, but the judge disagreed.
