A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit after it was accused of not responding to a validation request from the consumer, pointing out that the defendant doesn’t necessarily have to respond, as long as it doesn’t attempt to collect on the debt.
The background: The plaintiff received a notice regarding the debt from the defendant. The plaintiff wrote “Refusal for Cause” across the notification and sent it back to the defendant by certified mail. In the same mailing, the plaintiff included a letter demanding validation and verification of the debt.
- Ten days later, having not received a response from the defendant, the plaintiff sent another letter, calling it a “Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure.” The defendant did not respond to that letter, either.
- Two months later, the plaintiff sent the defendant a “Notice of Default and Final Statement” letter. This lawsuit followed a few days after the final letter was sent.
The ruling: Judge Peter J. Messitte of the District Court for the District of Maryland quickly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, noting that while debt collectors are required to cease collection activities until they provide verification of the debt, they are not explicitly mandated under the FDCPA to respond to a validation request unless they continue to pursue the collection. The judge pointed out that as long as the debt collector did not engage in any further collection activities after receiving the request for validation, it was not in violation of the FDCPA.
- The court dismissed the claims against the defendant without prejudice, providing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint if additional facts could be presented to substantiate the allegations.
