In a case that was defended by Jeff Turner and David Shaver at Surdyk Dowd & Turner, a District Court judge in Michigan has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment after it was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not specify whether interest was accruing on the debts or whether the statute of limitations had expired.
The Background: The plaintiff received two collection letters from the defendant, seeking to collection on a pair of static debts, meaning that the balance was fixed and that no interest was accruing on the debts. The letters itemized the principal, interest accrued (i.e., post-charge-off interest), and total debt — but did not specify whether interest continued to accrue and whether the debts were legally enforceable.
- The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692e(2)(a), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g(a)(1).
The Ruling: It is not the defendant’s responsibility to address every possible scenario in a collection letter, noted Judge Susan K, DeClerq of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. While acknowledging that failing to discuss whether interest is accruing may potentially mislead a least sophisticated consumer, saying nothing about a debt that is not increasing is not misleading, she ruled.
- “In sum, the text of the FDCPA does not require Defendant to disclose nonexistent interest accrual,” Judge DeClerq wrote. “Holding otherwise would offend the purpose of the FDCPA. Requiring disclosures about nonaccruing interest could increase administrative burdens and costs for debt collectors, as they would need to add and to manage unnecessary disclosures. Clear, straightforward disclosures that reflect the debt’s actual status — without speculative or hypothetical information — better serve the interests of consumers and debt collectors. This approach avoids creating unnecessary complications and ensures that consumers receive accurate and relevant information, thus aligning with the practical realities of debt collection and consumer protection.”
- Judge DeClerq also noted that there is nothing in the FDCPA requiring collectors to warn consumers about expiring or expired statutes of limitation. And the plaintiff provided no evidence to suggest that any consumer would be misled or confused because some sort of disclosure was not included.
