When is a communication from a debt collector not an attempt to collect a debt? If it says so in a letter to an attorney representing a consumer, is that enough? A District Court judge in Pennsylvania thinks so, and has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in three consolidated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuits that accused a collector of violating the statute by saying “this communication is from a debt collector but is not an attempt to collect a debt” in a letter providing validation information that was requested.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Davis v. Portfolio Recovery Associates can be accessed by clicking here.
Each of the three lawsuits had essentially the same allegations, so they were combined into one suit. Each of the plaintiffs were sued by the defendant. The plaintiffs engaged with an attorney, who sent the defendant a letter. The letter notified the defendant that the plaintiffs were now being represented, denied the debts were owed, and requested additional information about the debts. The defendant responded by sending a letter to the attorney with the information that was requested. At the bottom of the letter was information about how the defendant could be contacted by phone, mail, or online. And in the footer of the letter was a disclosure that said, “This communication is from a debt collector but is not an attempt to collect a debt. Notice: See Reverse Side for Important Information.”
The plaintiffs filed suit, claiming the defendant’s response violated Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA because it allegedly was an attempt to collect a debt. But once discovery was complete, the plaintiffs attempted abandoned their original theory and put forth a new one, but Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled the attempt to change theories at this stage of the case were procedurally barred and analyzed the arguments based on the original claim.
When looking at the response sent to the plaintiffs by the defendant, Judge Barry Fischer ruled the letter was not a means of attempting to induce payment. “The letters do not demand payment, offer alternatives to default, or request financial information,” she wrote. “In fact, the letters make no request of any kind from the debtors. The letters contain contact information, but do not offer any means of making payment on the alleged debt and expressly disclaim that the letter is an ‘attempt to collect a debt.’ “
Another reason why the defendant’s letter was not an attempt to collect a debt was because it was sent in response to a request from the plaintiffs’ attorney, Judge Barry Fischer noted.
