A District Court judge in Ohio has denied a collection agency’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a counterclaim that was filed by the defendant after it was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not identifying itself as a debt collector in a letter that was sent to the plaintiff.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Washington v. Finance System of Toledo can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant in regard to an unpaid medical debt. The letter included the following passage:
THIS BILL MAY BE LISTED AGAINST YOUR CREDIT! IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO RESPOND IMMEDIATELY. ANY UNPAID BALANCE SHOWING ON YOUR CREDIT REPORTMAY RESULT IN CREDIT BEING DENIED
PAY IN FULL IMMEDIATELY TO:
FINANCE SYSTEM OF TOLEDO, INC.
* * * * * *
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. ALL RETURNED CHECKS ARE SUBJECT TO A $30.00 SERVICE CHARGE PLUS BANK FEES.
The plaintiff sued, alleging that the defendant violated Sections 1692e(10), 1692e(11), and 1692f by not identifying itself as a debt collector in the letter. The defendant answered the suit and filed a counterclaim of its own, alleging the plaintiff violated Section 1692k of the FDCPA seeking attorney’s fees and costs related to the litigation.
Applying the least sophisticated consumer standard to the letter, Judge James Carr of the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, ruled that the defendant’s letter needed to explicitly state that it was being sent by a debt collector. “Telling the debtor what you want is not synonymous with stating who you are,” Judge Carr wrote in his ruling. “This requirement is not, after all, hard to meet. One need merely read and follow a simple command: namely, to tell the debtor forthrightly that the communication comes from a debt collector.”
