For the second time, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in on the same debt collection case, but this time, it sided with the defendants and affirmed a summary judgment award, ruling that sending a collection letter to an incorrect address was not a material violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it could not have impacted the plaintiff’s decision-making process because he never received notice that a lawsuit had been filed against him.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Tiene v. Drexel University and J. Scott Watson can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff had an unpaid debt of tuition, late fees, and administrative fees that was placed with one of the defendants. When contacted by a collection agency, the plaintiff called the university and provided updated contact information and requested a formal meeting. When the plaintiff did not show up for the meeting, the university resumed collection activity. The law firm subsequently sent two collection letters to an address it had on file for the plaintiff — which turned out to be an old address. The plaintiff did not respond to the letters and they were not returned as undeliverable. The law firm then filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and had the complaint served to the original address, not the new address the plaintiff provided in the call with the university.
Previously, the Third Circuit had overturned a summary judgment ruling, determining that a District Court judge had “erred in holding that collateral estoppel applies to prohibit his deceptive service of process claim.”
But this time, after the District Court again awarded summary judgment to the defendants, the Third Circuit ruled that sending the communications to the old address did not amount to a violation of the FDCPA, nor did including the correct case name and division number. All the plaintiff had to do was search for his name on the municipal court’s website to find the case, which was even enough for a least sophisticated consumer to handle.
