Judge Grants Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in FDCPA Case Referencing ‘Balance Due’ in Letter

A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by referencing the “balance due” in a collection letter which could have meant that the balance may increase in the future.

A copy of the ruling in the case of Gardner v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. can be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. In two separate places in the letter, the phrase “balance due as of” was included along with the date the letter was sent. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA because it misrepresented that the balance would increase after the date the letter was sent.

While falling short of calling out the plaintiff and his attorney, Judge Chad Kenney of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did agree with the defendant’s assertions that the plaintiff’s interpretation was “bizarre and idiosyncratic.”

“A collection letter does not violate the FDCP A simply because a lawyer is able to point out a question the ‘letter does not expressly answer,’ ” Judge Kenney wrote, citing an Appeals Court ruling in Koehn v. Delta Outsource Group.

Judge Kenney also took issue with the plaintiff’s use of a precedent — Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group

— where a collection letter offered two different ways to dispute a debt. “Here, the collection letter cannot be reasonably read to have two meanings,” he wrote. “It bears repeating that ‘[t]he [least-sophisticated] debtor is still held to a quotient of reasonableness, a basic level of understanding, and a willingness to read with care, and the debt collector accordingly cannot be held liable for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations.’ “