When you are being sought after for a number of unpaid debts, it can be difficult to keep track of your activities. That seems to be the case in this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit, in which a District Court judge in Washington has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment because it appears the plaintiff disputed a different debt but not the one involved in this particular situation.
The plaintiff had filed suit against the defendant, alleging the defendant failed to properly validate and verify an alleged $19,625.97 credit card debt owed to JP Morgan Chase. The plaintiff claimed she made several attempts to dispute and request validation of the debt, but the defendant did not provide proper verification as required under the FDCPA.
However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that she actually disputed the specific debt at issue. While the plaintiff provided letters showing she disputed a separate $17,228.54 debt allegedly owed to Bank of America, there was no proof she took the required steps to trigger the debt validation requirements for the JP Morgan Chase debt.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant was required to provide additional verification materials beyond confirming the amount of debt claimed, such as an original “wet ink” contract signature. Citing prior case law, Judge Mary K. Dimke of the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington reiterated that debt verification under the FDCPA “involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.”
The plaintiff also provided evidence that the defendant’s law firm had changed physical addresses, alleging this showed they were running a “fictitious business.” However, Judge Dimke found the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any genuine dispute over whether the defendant violated the FDCPA’s prohibitions on false or misleading representations. While the firm’s address had changed, the plaintiff had the correct mailing address, and her conclusory allegations were insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.
