A District Court judge in Indiana has denied a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after it was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for allegedly reporting a debt that had been disputed, even though the dispute was sent to a fax machine number that the defendant had removed eight months before the dispute was faxed.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Webster v. Receivables Performance Management can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff disputed a debt that the defendant was attempting to collect and retained an attorney to represent her. The attorney faxed a letter to the defendant disputing the debt. Three months later, the defendant was still reporting the debt as undisputed to a credit bureau. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Sections 1692e(8), 1692d, 1692f of the FDCPA by reporting a debt to a credit reporting agency without noting that the debt was being disputed.
In seeking a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the defendant indicated that the fax number to which the attorney had sent the dispute had been removed months before the fax was allegedly sent. The fax number was apparently still being published on third-party websites, such as the Better Business Bureau, after the defendant had removed it. The defendant argued that the plaintiff and her attorney failed to verify that the fax had been received, but at this stage of the case, the judge has to accept the allegations “as true and all inferences are drawn in favor of Webster as the non-moving party when considering the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
The defendant also attempted to sway the judge to rule on its behalf because it made a settlement offer of $1,000 and reasonable attorney fees, which was rejected. But the rejection of the offer does not make the complaint moot, ruled Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
