A District Court judge in Maryland has smacked down a plaintiff, falling short of accusing her of perjury, but questioning her attempts at “justify[ing] her fraudulent conduct,” in granting a defendant’s motion for summary judgment after it was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act in attempting to collect on a debt the plaintiff said was not hers, despite evidence to the contrary.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Miller v. Trident Asset Management can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff disputed a debt that appeared on her credit report that was owed to Verizon. The defendant investigated the dispute and found it to be valid. The plaintiff also disputed the debt to one of the credit bureaus. In filing the dispute, the plaintiff included a copy of her credit report. Next to the debt owed to Verizon, the plaintiff wrote “ID Fraud, Not Mine. Delete, Remove + Block This Fraud.” The defendant once again investigated the dispute and found it to be valid. The plaintiff called the defendant and a representative provided details about when the account was opened, closed, and offered to settle the debt for 50% of what was owed.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA and FCRA. During her deposition, however, the plaintiff admitted that her daughter was the one who opened the account with Verizon, that there was no identity theft, and that the debt was owed because her daughter did not pay the bill.
Judge David Copperthite of the District Court for the District of Maryland goes into great detail to prove why the defendant did not violate the FDCPA or the FCRA, and says that were summary judgment not granted, that he would have dismissed the case because of the plaintiff’s “fraudulent conduct.”
“Her initial basis for challenging the reporting of the debt was fraudulent,” Judge Copperthite wrote. “While it may be argued that her statutory claims are separate and distinct from her fraudulent identity theft, ‘but for’ her claim of identity theft and her dispute of the debt, there would have been no dispute for Trident to report. Her fraud is inextricably intertwined with her cause of action.”
