You’ve all seen those videos where a driver suddenly realizes he or she missed their turn and tries to immediately double back, only to end up getting into an accident? In a case defended by Mitch Williamson at Barron & Newburger, a District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a collection law firm’s motion for summary judgment after a plaintiff accused the firm of sending a collection letter without having an attorney meaningfully review the case — even though the letter said so — and then accusing the firm of making such a disclosure when he found out later that an attorney did review the case.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Heerema v. Forster Garbus & Garbus can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, on the firm’s letterhead. In the letter was the following disclosure: At this time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account. At this time, no determination has been made as to whether a lawsuit will be commenced.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the presence of the firm’s name in the letterhead made it seem that an attorney had reviewed the case before sending the letter. During discovery, the plaintiff learned that an attorney may, in fact, have reviewed the case. So he amended his complaint and now claimed that the letter violated the FDCPA because the letter indicated that an attorney had not reviewed the case when that actually may have occurred.
The plaintiff subsequently filed for summary judgment, which was denied. That was followed by the defendant filing its own motion for summary judgment.
First addressing the claim that the letter violated the FDCPA because it falsely implied that a lawsuit was imminent because it was sent by a law firm. But Judge Esther Salas of the District Court for the District of New Jersey found the plaintiff’s argument did not hold water. The plaintiff’s argument that a least sophisticated consumer would be deceived by the letterhead and not read the disclaimer in the letter was “unreasonable,” Judge Salas ruled, adding “His interpretation suggests that the least sophisticated consumer would either disbelieve the disclaimer or not understand it despite its clarity.”
Moving on the next argument — that an attorney was involved even though the letter says that wasn’t the case — the notes on the account won the day for the defendant. The account notes indicated that the attorney involved in the case approved the collection letter to be sent out based on basic biographical information about the plaintiff and not specific data about the debt like the charge-off statement or the transaction statement. Those were sent to the defendant after the letter in question was sent.
“… Garbus performed merely ministerial work of the kind debt collectors ordinarily perform,” Judge Salas wrote. “FG&G’s computer system scrubbed Plaintiff’s file for bankruptcy filings, military status, and death, and Garbus approved the collection letter after reviewing Plaintiff’s initial file, which consisted of biographical information such as his name, address, and social security number, and, possibly, limited information concerning the debt.”
