In a case that was defended by The Echols Law Firm, with local counsel provided by Charles McHale of Golden Scaz Gagain, 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 the plaintiff claimed to have been misled by a disclosure in a collection letter, but failed to explain how she was impacted by said omission.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Ruffin v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a letter seeking to collect on a time-barred debt. The letter included a disclosure that said the plaintiff would not be sued, but that the debt may continue to be reported to the credit bureaus for as long as the law allows, and that a partial payment or promise to pay may restart the statute of limitations. However, in Florida, it takes more than a partial payment to restart the statute of limitations. In The Sunshine State, a signature is also required.
But the plaintiff never alleged she made a payment on the debt and she failed to explain how the alleged misrepresentation injured her or caused her damages.
Using the Eleventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Trichell v. Midland Credit Management, Judge James Moody, Jr., of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, made short work of the plaintiff’s arguments. Because the plaintiff knew that a partial payment alone would not restart the statute of limitations, claiming to have been misled by the letter did not add up. “In other words,” Judge Moody wrote, “if the Letter was actually misleading, Ruffin knew that before she filed her complaint and any risk of harm associated with the language in the Letter had dissipated.”
