In a case that was defended by Martin Golden Lyons Watts Morgan, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that the plaintiff’s statements during a phone call with a debt collector did not constitute a dispute under the law. The decision reinforces the standard that merely questioning a balance does not necessarily trigger the reporting requirements of Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA.
The background: The case originated when the plaintiff’s delinquent account was placed with the defendant for collection in July 2021. Beginning in September of that year, the defendant began reporting the debt to credit reporting agencies. Nearly two years later, in May 2023, the plaintiff called the defendant regarding the debt.
- During the conversation, the plaintiff asked, “Is this balance of seven hundred and ninety-three dollars because of equipment? Because my monthly bill wasn’t that high.” The defendant’s representative responded that the balance included both equipment and the plaintiff’s final service bill. The plaintiff then replied, “Okay, you answered my questions. That’s pretty much all I needed. You can have a nice day.”
- The defendant did not mark the debt as disputed in its internal records or in its reporting to credit bureaus. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit, alleging that the failure to communicate the debt as disputed constituted a violation of Section 1692e(8), which prohibits debt collectors from providing false or misleading credit information, including the failure to report a disputed debt as disputed.
The ruling: The district court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the plaintiff had actually disputed the debt. The plaintiff then appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which agreed with the lower court’s assessment.
- Having reviewed the call recording, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff merely asked a question about the balance and accepted the response without expressing any form of disagreement. In its opinion, the Tenth Circuit emphasized:
“He asked a question about it, received an answer, and then ended the call. So the district court correctly granted summary judgment to [the defendant].”
- The plaintiff had argued that he was not required to use any particular phrasing to dispute the debt and that his statements about the amount due should have been enough. However, the court rejected this argument, clarifying that while the FDCPA does not require specific language to trigger a dispute, there must be a clear expression of disagreement. Simply inquiring about a balance does not automatically constitute a dispute under the statute.
- With this ruling, the Tenth Circuit reinforces the principle that debt collectors are not obligated to treat casual questions about an account as formal disputes.
