A District Court judge in Alabama has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it required the recipient of a collection letter to state the reasons why a debt was being disputed.
A copy of the order in the case of Brown v. Smith, Rouchin & Associates can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, which included the following disclosures:
The purpose of this notice is to give you an opportunity to respond to the described debt claim and make arrangements to either pay it or state your reasons why it may be incorrect.
Unless you notice [sic] this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA because the letter went beyond what is prescribed in the FDCPA when disputing a debt. Asking the plaintiff to explain why a debt may be invalid before receiving verification of the debt from the collector is beyond what is required of consumers under the FDCPA, ruled Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division.
