A District Court judge in New York has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after it was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it allegedly failed to adequately identify the current owner of a debt in a collection letter.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Lugo v. Forster & Garbus can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. In the upper right-corner of the letter, there was a list of items, including the balance due, a reference number, the last four digits of the plaintiff’s account number, and the notation, “Re: Barclays Bank Delaware.” As well, in a detachable section of the letter meant to be included with a payment, there was another notation, “Re: Barclays Bank Delaware.”
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by not identifying the current creditor to whom the debt was owed which was a false or deceptive means to collect on a debt. Instead of identifying the current creditor, the plaintiff argued, the letter only identified the source of the debt.
While Judge Allyne Ross of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed with the plaintiff that some courts have ruled that a singular reference to an entity other than a collector in a letter does not comply with the FDCPA, there are plenty of other cases that determined an “unadorned” reference to a creditor can be “sufficient” identification.
A least sophisticated consumer “would understand that Barclays Bank Delaware is both the source and the current owner of the debt,” Judge Ross wrote in her ruling, especially because the only other entity named in the letter was the defendant, which identified itself as a collector.
“Plaintiff’s view that the debt may have been sold to another party not mentioned in the collection letter is an idiosyncratic interpretation that goes beyond the text of the letter,” Judge Ross wrote. A least sophisticated consumer “is not likely to make such a leap.”
