A District Court judge in Washington has awarded two plaintiffs more than $60,000 in emotional damages in a bench trial after suing a collector for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the defendant attempted to collect more than what was owed and for making false and misleading statements when attempting to collect.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Johnson v. Columbia Debt Recovery is available by clicking here.
The judge had already partially granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the defendant’s conduct had violated Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(8), and 1692(f) of the FDCPA as well as a provision of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The defendant attempted to collect amounts more than what was owed in three phone calls with one of the plaintiffs and one letter that was sent to both plaintiffs. In the communications, the defendant was accused of making false and misleading statements, including that a judgment had been entered for the alleged debt, that the plaintiffs’ wages would be garnished, that the plaintiffs had been evicted, and that all of the various charges and fees were legitimate. The defendant subsequently admitted that the statements were made in error.
Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez of the District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division, ruled that the plaintiffs did not have to meet an intentional infliction of emotional distress to recover in this case and that the “stress, anxiety, feels of helplessness and hopelessness, and other forms of general emotional distress,” that came when the plaintiffs were “particularly vulnerable” because they “were experiencing the joy and challenges of raising a new baby” was enough to merit awarding them $62,120 in emotional distress. The plaintiffs were also awarded $120 in damages under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and $2,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA. The plaintiffs were also entitled to have their attorney’s fees covered by the defendant.
