In a case that was defended by Xerxes Martin and the team at Martin Golden Lyons Watts Morgan, a District Court judge in Oklahoma has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling the “dispute” that the plaintiff alleged to have made during a conversation with a representative of the defendant could not have been construed as a dispute.
The Background: The account was placed with the defendant in July 2021. Starting in September of that year, the defendant began reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies. In May of 2023, the plaintiff contacted the defendant. During the call, the plaintiff said, “Is this balance of seven hundred and ninety-three dollars because of equipment? Because my monthly bill wasn’t that high.” To the plaintiff, this was equivalent to disputing the debt. The defendant didn’t see it that way. When the defendant did not report the debt as disputed to the credit reporting agencies, the plaintiff filed suit.
- The plaintiff alleged the defendant violated Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by furnishing information it knew to be false to the credit reporting agencies.
The Ruling: After listening to a recording of the call, Judge Bernard M. Jones of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma determined that “no reasonable factfinder” would be able to agree with the plaintiff that he disputed the debt during the call.
- “Plaintiff simply states that he has some questions about some information on his credit report, asks the above referenced question, and when Defendant’s representative states that it did include equipment, Plaintiff says that he answered his question,” Judge Jones wrote. “At no point during the call does Plaintiff say anything that would indicate he is disputing the debt.”
