Courts have long been asked to put objective parameters around subjective terms. In the case of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for example, what does it mean to harass, oppress, or abuse a consumer? A District Court judge in Missouri has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss, although he did deny the defendant’s motion for sanctions in an FDCPA case over a validation letter that was sent to the plaintiffs’ attorney.
The Background: The defendant sent a letter to the attorney representing the plaintiffs demanding payment for a debt. The attorney replied to the letter, disputing the validity of the debt and requesting that the defendants verify it. The defendant responded with another letter, indicating the plaintiffs owed $1,777.50 for attorney’s fees and costs in an underlying court case. The plaintiffs filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating Section 1692d of the FDCPA, essentially accusing the defendant of engaging in harassing, oppressive, and abusive conduct by attempting to collect on a debt they believed they did not owe.
The Ruling: After first establishing that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri turned to the merits of the case.
- Calling the letters as “mundane and unremarkable” as letters between attorneys representing adversarial parties can be, Judge Schelp quickly decided that the plaintiff’s claims “plainly” failed. The plaintiffs only devote two sentences to making their case that the letters harassing or oppressive, claiming that because they did not owe anything, the letter demanding payment was therefore harassing. The plaintiffs failed to cite a single case to support their claim, Judge Schelp noted. “… it truly is puzzling why Plaintiffs concluded that their position was so obviously correct that they need not have supplied any caselaw to support it.”
