Does a plaintiff suffer an injury when $278.75 is taken from his bank account to satisfy a judgment of approximately $12,000, even if the defendant attempted to collect more than it was entitled to? A second District Court judge has ruled in favor of the plaintiff, denying the defendant’s motion for reconsideration in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case.
The Background: The defendant filed a collection lawsuit to recover an unpaid credit card debt. A default judgment was entered against the plaintiff in the amount of $11,951.32. A few months later, the plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection and listed the debt among his financial obligations. For the next four months, the defendant sought to execute on the judgment, proposing a writ for $14,656.36 and obtaining a bank levy of $278.75 from an account held by the plaintiff. The defendant also filed a motion to turn over the funds in the levied bank account and submitted a certificate showing an outstanding balance of $14,857.26. Two months later, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter to recover the outstanding balance.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated sections of the FDCPA because it allegedly attempted to collect more than it was entitled to in the proposed writ, that the certificate in support of the motion to turn over the levied bank funds included a number in excess of the amount actually owed, and that the collection letter attempted to collect post-judgment interest in excess of what the defendant was entitled to collect.
- A District Court judge denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that levying the funds and thus denying the plaintiff access to the money amounts to a concrete injury.
The Ruling: The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. In order to get the original motion overturned, the defendant would have to demonstrate that there was a change in the law, that new evidence was now available, or that there was a clear error of law made in the original ruling.
- The defendant argued that the original judge overlooked the fact that the plaintiff did not suffer an injury when his funds were levied.
- But, as Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the District Court for the District of New York noted, this is not one of the reasons why a ruling can be overturned.
- “… Defendant is improperly asking the Court to reconstrue the facts in a manner favorable to Defendant,” Judge Martinotti writes. “Plaintiff argues Judge McNulty properly found Plaintiff had suffered an injury-in-fact from Defendant’s bank levy, since this levy was for an amount greater than owed and deprived Plaintiff of access to his assets.”
- The original judge did not make a clear error or commit an injustice against the defendant, Judge Martinotti ruled.
