A District Court judge in Oregon has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices act case, ruling the plaintiff’s requests when seeking validation of the debt fell outside the scope of what the defendant had to provide and that the defendant did not validate the statute by sending the same information when the plaintiff initiated multiple disputes about the same debt.
The Background: The plaintiff was sued for an unpaid debt by the defendant, which was representing a credit union, in 2020. The defendant obtained a judgment.
- In 2023, the plaintiff sent a debt validation request to the defendant. Three days later, the defendant responded, providing the name and address of the original creditor, documents substantiating the underlying debt, a copy of the lawsuit and judgment, and other documents related to the writs of garnishment and collections.
- A month later, the defendant received a second validation notice from the plaintiff. The defendant responded six days later with the same packet of documents to validate the debt.
- The plaintiff then filed suit in Oregon state court, alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA because it did not provide a statement from the original creditor, sworn under oath by someone authorized, willing and able to testify in court regarding this alleged debt or a notarized statement by a qualified representative of the original creditor that attests to the validity of the alleged debt. The defendant then removed the case to federal court and sought summary judgment.
- The plaintiff also disputed that she received either validation packet from the defendant.
The Ruling: As anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the FDCPA will attest, what the defendant sent to the plaintiff more than satisfies the requirements when validating a debt and what the plaintiff was asking for was not required — a fact that Judge Ann Aiken of the District Court for the District of Oregon also knew.
- “Defendant twice sent Plaintiff the name and address of the original creditor; evidence of the underlying debt; a valid circuit court judgment issued against Plaintiff for the debt; copies of the writs of garnishment issued by the circuit court; and documents evidencing Defendant’s collection efforts,” Judge Aiken wrote. “This is more than sufficient to meet Defendant’s obligations under § 1692g.”
- Judge Aiken also ruled that the evidence supplied by the defendant that both validation packets were received by the plaintiff was enough to counter the plaintiff’s claim she did not receive them.
