A District Court judge in Illinois has granted summary judgment in favor of a defendant that was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by trying to collect an unpaid debt as well as a collection fee that was assessed by the client. The judge denied a motion from the defendant for the plaintiff to cover its attorney’s fees.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Zelner v. ATG Credit can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff incurred a debt of $20 to a healthcare facility, which was not paid. At the time of service, the plaintiff signed a contract that said, “in the event an unpaid balance (over 90 days past due) is placed in collections with any third party collection agency, a collection fee will be added to the total amount due and owed by me.” The facility added a $4 collection fee to the balance and placed the account with the defendant for collection. The defendant mailed the plaintiff a collection letter, which the plaintiff used as the basis of her FDCPA suit, alleging that the letter violated the statute because it misrepresented the amount of the debt, by threatening to collect unauthorized fees, and collect on an amount not expressly authorized by any agreement.
The plaintiff alleged she did not agree to pay a collection fee, even though she signed the contract with the language referenced above.
In trying to defend itself, the plaintiff pointed to two cases — Bradley v. Franklin Collection Services, Inc., and Bass v. I.C. Systems, Inc., but the circumstances in both cases were too different to what occurred in this case, the judge ruled.
“Plaintiff did not agree to pay the collection agency fees but ‘a
collection fee,’ which was not tied to the actual costs of collection,” Judge Ronald Guzman wrote in his ruling.
Acknowledging that this case was a “close call” in terms of granting sanctions, Judge Guzman decided against it, saying the plaintiff’s case was not “completely implausible.”
