A District Court judge in Washington has denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff’s motion in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case revolving around the alleged expiration of a judgment.
The Background: The defendant was assigned an account back in 2011. After attempting to contact the plaintiff, the defendant filed a collection lawsuit. The plaintiff did not appear or respond to the suit. She did make a $50 payment in July 2013. Later that month, a default judgment in the amount of $21,949.69 was awarded to the defendant.
- When she became aware of the suit, the plaintiff said she kept in contact with the defendant and made payments when she could. The defendant garnished her wages and bank accounts three times and twice suspended collection attempts when the plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection.
- In May 2023, the defendant filed a transcript to renew the judgment. It did not file an application to extend the judgment. Because it did not, the judgment expired on July 26, 2023.
- In September 2023, the plaintiff made a $100 payment. A month later, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter, indicating she still owed $31,134.62.
- The plaintiff called the defendant and was told that the judgment had been extended. Confused, the plaintiff purchased copies of the court filed and contacted an attorney to help her understand her rights.
- The plaintiff filed suit in April, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA and state law in Washington for collecting on an expired judgment.
The Ruling: Judge Robert J. Bryan of the District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that the defendant did not follow proper procedure in Washington to extend a judgment and that the defendant violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA by attempting to collect on a judgment that had expired.
- By accepting the plaintiff’s payment, the defendant left the plaintiff with the impression that the judgment was valid and slowed her response to contesting the judgment, Judge Bryan wrote.
- The defendant also attempted to argue it was entitled to the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense, but its policy of having lawyers “occasionally review forms sent to debtors” is not one that is reasonably adapted to avoid misstatements, one of the prongs of using the bona fide error defense, Judge Bryan ruled.
