A District Court judge in Illinois has ruled that including references to the “original creditor,” a “sender,” and a “current owner of the unpaid account,” is not enough to identify the current creditor to whom a debt is owed and denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss, also ruling that the defendant failed to notify the plaintiff that she had only 30 days to request that information.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Africano-Domingo v. Miller & Steeno can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. While the letter did not specifically use the words “current creditor,” it did say, “[t]his firm represents DNF Associates, LLC, the current owner of the unpaid account referred to above.” But an unsophisticated consumer might not realize that the “current owner” is the same as “current creditor” and it would be “premature” to conclude whether a significant portion of the population would be confused by the language, said Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
“Someone reading the letter could conclude that ‘current creditor’ refers to DNF Associates because it is identified as the owner of the unpaid Kay Jewelers account, and it is the only entity identified in the letter aside from Kay Jewelers, the ‘original creditor,’ ” Judge Pallmeyer wrote. “On the other hand, because the letter identifies Kay Jewelers as the ‘original creditor,’ and does not refer to any entity as the corresponding ‘current creditor’ in those words, someone reading the letter could also reasonably wonder if the ‘current creditor’ is an unnamed entity.”
Regarding the lack of notification about the 30-day window to request the name of the current creditor, even though the plaintiff acknowledged the debt by disputing its accuracy and waited four months to do so, there are multiple inferences that could be drawn from the letter, Judge Pallmeyer ruled.
The defendant also argued that it included two references to the 30-day window for other information that could be requested and started the next sentence with “we will also provide you with,” which someone could use to deduce he or she had 30 days to request that information, too. But Judge Pallmeyer agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that by specifying the 30-day window in other places but not with respect to requesting the name of the creditor, “that any reader, of any sophistication level, would believe that the 30-day deadline did not apply to a request for the name and address of the original creditor.”
