In a case that was defended by Malone Frost Martin, with local representation from Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman, A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it was not allegedly clear enough in a collection letter that interest on the plaintiff’s account would not be added to her balance once the defendant completed its collection actions.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Riccio v. Client Services, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, seeking to collect $847.16 on an unpaid retail credit card account. The letter offered to resolve the debt if the plaintiff made a payment of $382. The letter also included the following statement, “Please note that no interest will be added to your account balance through the course of Client Services, Inc. collection efforts concerning your account.”
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the statement violated Section 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations in collecting on the debt and making a false representation of the character or amount of the debt. Her argument was that the statement did not inform her whether or not interest would be added to the account once the defendant completed its collection efforts.
The defendant countered saying that even a least sophisticated consumer would understand that the statement indicated that interest was not accruing while the defendant was collecting on the account.
Judge Freda Wolfson of the District Court for the District of New Jersey, sided with the defendant.
“Plaintiff argues that the least sophisticated debtor could understand the
collection letter to mean that interest could accrue on her account once Defendant completes its collection efforts,” Judge Wolfson wrote. “This reading of the letter, however, does not render the letter misleading. However, the letter plainly states no interest would accrue during Defendant’s servicing of the debt. The Court declines to stretch the FDCPA to find a violation based solely on Plaintiff’s speculation that interest could, one day, accrue on her account following Defendant’s collection efforts.”
In a case that was defended by Malone Frost Martin, with local representation from Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman, A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it was not allegedly clear enough in a collection letter that interest on the plaintiff’s account would not be added to her balance once the defendant completed its collection actions.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Riccio v. Client Services, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, seeking to collect $847.16 on an unpaid retail credit card account. The letter offered to resolve the debt if the plaintiff made a payment of $382. The letter also included the following statement, “Please note that no interest will be added to your account balance through the course of Client Services, Inc. collection efforts concerning your account.”
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the statement violated Section 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations in collecting on the debt and making a false representation of the character or amount of the debt. Her argument was that the statement did not inform her whether or not interest would be added to the account once the defendant completed its collection efforts.
The defendant countered saying that even a least sophisticated consumer would understand that the statement indicated that interest was not accruing while the defendant was collecting on the account.
Judge Freda Wolfson of the District Court for the District of New Jersey, sided with the defendant.
“Plaintiff argues that the least sophisticated debtor could understand the
collection letter to mean that interest could accrue on her account once Defendant completes its collection efforts,” Judge Wolfson wrote. “This reading of the letter, however, does not render the letter misleading. However, the letter plainly states no interest would accrue during Defendant’s servicing of the debt. The Court declines to stretch the FDCPA to find a violation based solely on Plaintiff’s speculation that interest could, one day, accrue on her account following Defendant’s collection efforts.”
