A District Court judge in Wisconsin has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment after it was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not using the phrase “current creditor” in a collection letter.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Steffek & Vandenwyngaard v. Client Services, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiffs received collection letters from the defendant related to unpaid credit card debts. The letters both contained the last four digits of the individuals’ account numbers, the balance due, a reference number, and at the top of these pieces of information, “RE: CHASE BANK USA, N.A.”
The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the letters violated Section 1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA, which require the letter include the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The letters the plaintiffs received violated the FDCPA, they claim, because they did not use the exact phrase, “current creditor.”
Because Chase Bank was referenced in the subject line, because there are no other creditors mentioned in the letter, and because the plaintiffs did not offer any evidence that someone else was owed the debt instead of Chase, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
“An unsophisticated consumer with an account at Chase Bank would understand based on the letters that Chase Bank USA, N.A. was the creditor to whom the debt was owed,” wrote Chief Judge William Griesbach of the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. “By failing to establish they have any evidence that Chase Bank was not the creditor to whom the debt is owed — indeed, by opposing the admission of any such evidence — Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden on summary judgment to present some evidence that the letters did not contain ‘the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.’ “
