The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit that accused a collector of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not specifically mentioning that a portion of a debt could be disputed, thus allegedly deceiving the plaintiff into thinking only the whole amount could be disputed.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Chaperon v. Sontag & Hyman, P.C., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff was behind on her rent, to the tune of $12,209.26. The defendant sent her a collection letter, which, in part read:
“The below named creditor claims that you owe rent arrears as specified. You have 30 days from receipt of this notice to dispute the debt. If you fail to do so, we will assume the debt to be valid. If you timely notify us, in writing, that you do dispute the debt, we will obtain verification of the debt and mail same to you.
The District Court, in its “well-reasoned” opinion, the Second Circuit concluded, was right to rule that not copying the disclosures directly from the FDCPA is a violation of the law, because “there is no requirement in the statute that any of its provisions be quoted verbatim.”
Any consumer, least sophisticated or otherwise, would, upon receiving a letter saying that he or she owed $12,209.26 in unpaid rent, “rationally think” that all or a portion of that amount could be disputed.
The Second Circuit did note that it would have been “prudent” for the defendant to have included language that a portion of the debt could be disputed.
