EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
If you’re going to use the Model Validation Notice and inform a consumer that he or she has 30 days in which to dispute the validity of all or part of a debt, and you’re going to put a date on the notice, then you probably better make sure that the deadline you put in that notice is at least 30 days after the day the notice is dated. A collection law firm is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit because the notice told the plaintiff that it had only 10 days to dispute the validity of the debt.
The background: The plaintiff, a trust, received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant. The notice, which was dated February 12, 2024, informed the plaintiff about an unpaid debt in the amount of $2,338.77. The itemization table noted that the account balance as of August 31 was $0.00 and that between September 1 and the day the notice was dated, $2,820 in assessments had been charged. After adding in interest and attorney’s fees and then taking into consideration a payment of $920, that left the balance that was owed.
- The notice informed the plaintiff that it had 30 days after receipt of the notice to dispute the validity of the debt or any part of it.
- Then, the notice informed the plaintiff that the disputed needed to be submitted by February 22, which was only 10 days after the date on the notice.
- The complaint doesn’t note what day the plaintiff received the notice, just that the notice is inconsistent and misleading because the February 22 is not at least 30 days from the date of the letter.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(10), and 1692g of the FDCPA.
- The complaint seeks to include a class of anyone who the defendant sent a letter to using the same form as the notice that was received by the plaintiff.
- The case has been removed to federal court by the defendant after being originally filed in Wisconsin state court.
