In a case that was defended by Patrick Newman and the team at Bassford Remele, a state court judge in Wisconsin has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit on the grounds the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because he did not suffer a concrete injury after receiving an undated Model Validation Notice.
The Background: In what has become a familiar theme in the accounts receivable management industry since Regulation F went into effect, the plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice, but like the MVN published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it had no date on it. It did have an itemization table, which informed the plaintiff about the amounts in interest and fees were charged between the itemization date and “today” and how much the total amount of the debt was “now.” The reverse of the notice also included a disclosure that said: The “total amount of the debt now” stated in the itemization of the debt is the amount due as of the date of this letter. Future interest may be added to the account(s) if the “total amount of the debt due now” is not paid.
- The issue, according to the plaintiff, is that how could he — or any least sophisticated consumer — know what today and now referred to if the notice had no date on it?
- This makes the letter unclear and confusing, which constituted a violation of the FDCPA, according to the plaintiff.
The Ruling: But, like most of the rulings we are seeing in federal court, Judge Mark G. Schroeder of the Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin, ruled that the notice “fully complies” with the FDCPA, meaning the plaintiff did not suffer a concrete injury, does not have standing to sue, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted.
