A District Court judge in Alabama has partially dismissed a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and partially granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the third-party disclosure provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act during a conversation with the plaintiff’s mother.
A copy of the ruling in Calhoun v. Sentry Credit, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant sent a collection letter to Beverly Calhoun in relation to debt on an unpaid auto loan. The defendant subsequently called Calhoun and left a message asking for the call to be returned. Calhoun returned the call and told the defendant she was bed-ridden and would call back when she recovered. Calhoun provided the defendant with a return phone number. When Calhoun did not return the call for three days, the defendant called back and left another message. Eight days after that message was left, the defendant contacted the plaintiff’s mother.
During the conversation, the representative of the defendant indicated to the plaintiff’s mother that the call was in reference to an “an important personal matter.”
In looking at similar cases within the Eleventh Circuit — most notably Edwards v. Niagara Credit Sols., Inc. — Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division ruled that using the phrase “important business matter” was enough to convey the call was about a debt.
As such, Judge Haikala allowed the case to proceed on the grounds the call may have violated Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA.
