A District Court judge in New Jersey has partially denied and partially granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case involving an undated Model Validation Notice, following a similar ruling in Florida that determined the language in the MVN “creates confusion” for the least sophisticated consumer.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Ginsberg v. I.C. System can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant that did not have a date on it. In the itemization table, the notice informed the plaintiff that between 1/25/2021 and today, no interest or fees had accrued on the debt and listed the amount that had been paid or credited to the account. The table also informed the plaintiff about the “total amount of the debt now.”
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the notice violated Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. Judge Michael A. Shipp of the District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the 1692d and 1692f claims, but denied it on the 1692e and 1692g claims.
The defendant attempted to argue it was entitled to Chevron deference because Congress empowered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to issue binding regulations related to the FDCPA. Regulation F was issued by the CFPB under that authority, meaning it is entitled to the deference.
In looking around for precedents, Judge Shipp found Roger v. GC Services, in which a federal judge ruled that the safe harbors in Regulation F do not extend to the substance of what is included in an undated Model Validation Notice.
Regulation F says that collectors that use the Model Validation Notice complies with the information and form requirements of Regulation F; it mentions nothing about complying with the FDCPA, Judge Shipp noted.
“By describing the ‘total amount of the debt now’ as $713.31, the Letter creates confusion for the ‘least sophisticated debtor’ as to the actual amount of debt that is owed at the time when he or she receives the Letter,” Judge Shipp wrote. “Considering the language in Regulation F and the decision in Roger
