If an attorney representing an individual types up a letter on behalf of the individual that disputes a debt and ceases communication with the collector, but the letter is signed by the individual and contained the individual’s return address and did not indicate that the individual was otherwise being represented by an attorney, is that a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? No, said a District Court judge in Missouri, who granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The Background: In 2021, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter. Two years later, an attorney representing the plaintiff typed a letter on the plaintiff’s behalf, stating, “I dispute that I owe you this debt. Do not contact me.” The attorney printed the letter, the plaintiff signed it, and then the attorney mailed the letter to the defendant. The envelope that was used to send the dispute notification only contained the plaintiff’s return address.
- A week or so after the dispute letter was sent, the defendant sent the plaintiff a response that verified the information about the debt was accurate. The response also indicated that the defendant would not contact the plaintiff unless required to do so by law or if the plaintiff asked for communications to be resumed. The response listed the balance on the debt and included a disclosure that said, “This is an attempt to collect a debt.”
- The plaintiff’s attorney sent another letter to the defendant, stating that the plaintiff was being represented and ordering the defendant to cease contact. The plaintiff said he paid for the stamp that was used to mail the second letter.
- The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by communicating with a consumer who has notified the collector that the consumer is refusing to pay the debt or wishes for further communications to be ceased.
The Ruling: Unfortunately for the plaintiff, he lacks standing to pursue this suit, ruled Judge Greg Kays of the District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Judge Kays doubts the plaintiff paid the attorney for one postage stamp, and if he did, the letter was merely an attempt to manufacture standing, the court ruled. The defendant had already indicated that it wasn’t going to contact the plaintiff, so there was no need for a second letter demanding that contact be ceased.
- Even if the plaintiff had standing, Judge Kays noted, the letter still would not have violated the FDCPA.
- “By including language that he disputed the debt in his Initial Letter, Plaintiff invited Defendant to confirm the amount owed,” Judge Kays wrote. “Defendant responded narrowly concerning the disputed debt amount, indicated it would no longer contact Plaintiff as he requested, and did not contact him thereafter.”
