A District Court judge in Louisiana has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act through a notice included in a collection letter notifying the recipient of his rights because the statute of limitations on the underlying debt had expired.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Bell v. Cascade Capital et al can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter offered a 25% discount on the total amount owed — $1,146 — if the account was settled within 45 days of the plaintiff receiving the letter. The letter also included the following statement:
The legal time limit (statute of limitations) for suing to collect this debt has expired. Even when the statute of limitations has expired, you may choose to make payments on the debt. Be aware: if you make a payment on the debt, admit to owing the debt, promise to pay the debt, or waive the statute of limitations on the debt, the time period in which the debt is enforceable may start again.
The plaintiff sued, alleging the letter violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations and by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect on a debt. His argument was that the statement about the expiration of the statute of limitations did not “accurately reflect” state law in Louisiana.
Judge James Cain of the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, made short work of the plaintiff’s argument, ruling that even a least sophisticated consumer would see the word “may” in the SOL statement and understand that “the statement will not always be true and that he should investigate further.”
Judge Cain granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case and denied a request from the plaintiff to re-file the complaint.
