A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has partially dismissed claims that a law firm representing a timeshare community in Pennsylvania violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by filing a lawsuit against the plaintiffs in the improper venue, but denied a motion to dismiss over allegations that the defendant attempted to collect unincurred attorney’s fees unauthorized late fees.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Bargeski v. Hayes, Johnson & Conley, PLLC can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendants filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania against the plaintiffs, who live in New York, seeking to recover $1,861.70, which included $861.70 in unpaid association fees and late fees and $1,000 in reasonable attorney fees and costs. The plaintiffs turned around and filed a suit of their own, alleging the defendants should have filed the suit in New York instead of Pennsylvania, and that they were not allowed to include late fees and attorney fees in the amount that was owed.
The judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss over the improper venue claim, because the suit was filed in the same county as the location of the timeshare property.
With respect to the other charges, however, the judge denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the underlying agreement allowed for the collection of interest on unpaid fees, but did not allow for the collection of late fees. As well, by attempting to collect $1,000 in “reasonable” attorney fees, the defendants were “requesting payment for work they had not yet completed,” which “mischaracterized” the amount that was owed.
