A District Court judge in Florida has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it included the validation notice disclosure in a second collection letter months after sending the initial validation notice.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Mathis v. Allied Interstate LLC and LVNV Funding can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant in March 2019. It included the following disclosure:
Unless you notify us within 30 days after receiving this letter that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, we will assume that this debt is valid. If you notify us in writing within 30 days after receiving this letter that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, we will obtain and mail to you verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment. If you request of us in writing within 30 days after receiving this letter, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
In June, the defendant sent the plaintiff another letter which included the same disclosure. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the second letter violated Section 16792e(10) of the FDCPA by making false, misleading or deceptive representations in attempting to collect on a debt.
The problem for the plaintiff, however, was that he did not dispute the debt after receiving the first collection letter and his theory that the defendant never had any intention of granting an additional 30-day validation period was not raised in his initial complaint.
