A District Court judge in Florida has denied competing motions for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, in a case that hinges on whether a consumer saying, “Okay. All right. Well, thank you for your assistance then. That’s all I really needed for now. I’ll go ahead and conduct further inquiries about this matter independently” counts as a dispute of the debt after being prompted with the opportunity to dispute the debt by a representative of the defendant.
The Background: The plaintiff called the defendant and said during the call, “I’m calling because this bill is a little bit high. Was that accurate? Was the meter correct?” The representative offered to mark the account as disputed, leading the plaintiff to make the statement above, saying she would make inquiries about the matter on her own.
- The plaintiff checked her credit report a few weeks later and noted the account was not being reported as disputed.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by causing the plaintiff emotional distress, severe humiliation, and mental anguish.
- Both sides then filed for summary judgment. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to communicate that the debt was being disputed and that if she did, it was entitled to the FDCPA’s Bona Fide Error defense.
The Ruling: Although the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not explicitly state a dispute, Judge Julie S. Sneed of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida noted that the plaintiff’s statements, such as questioning the accuracy of the bill and mentioning she would investigate the matter independently, could be interpreted by a reasonable jury as disputing the debt. Emphasizing that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that her statements constituted a dispute, the judge determined. This ambiguity needed to be resolved at trial rather than on a summary judgment motion.
- The defendant argued that even if there was a violation, it was a bona fide error due to their established procedures. However, the court found that there were factual questions about whether these procedures were properly followed and implemented, and whether they were reasonably adapted to avoid the specific error of failing to report a dispute. This also needed to be resolved by a jury.
