Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good. Today’s webinar just happens to be on the topic of legal collections (register here) so it’s entirely timely to write about a court ruling involving a judgment. A District Court judge in Kentucky has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case after it was sued for not informing the plaintiff that a debt was allegedly time-barred when it sent a letter informing the plaintiff of payment options on a judgment.
The background: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to notify him that the debt in question was time-barred. The debt originated from a judgment obtained back in December 2008. Since then, the debt had been enforced through multiple garnishments, with the most recent garnishment executed in June 2023. In February 2024, the defendant sent the plaintiff a letter outlining payment options and the outstanding balance related to the debt.
- The plaintiff argued that by not explicitly mentioning that the debt was time-barred, the defendant misled him, violating the FDCPA. The case was originally filed in Kentucky state court before being removed to federal court. The plaintiff amended his complaint to include the FDCPA allegations, which the defendant then moved to dismiss.
The ruling: Judge Rebecca G. Jennings of the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled in favor of the defendant made short work of finding that the debt in question was not time-barred under Kentucky law. Judgments in Kentucky are subject to a 15-year statute of limitations, which is extended each time an enforcement action, such as a garnishment, is executed. Since the defendant had pursued garnishment as recently as June 2023, the statute of limitations was still in effect, Judge Jennings ruled.
