A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case that centers over the language used by the plaintiff and whether it constituted a dispute of the debt or not.
The background: The plaintiff received a debt collection letter from the defendant, a law firm retained by a credit union to collect on an unpaid debt of $10,511.29. In response to the letter from the defendant, the plaintiff sent a written reply, stating: “the real kicker is I received and [sic] unwanted letter from you guys Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, I’m like what 10,511.29 I don’t remember apply [sic] for credit with a Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch; I’m unwilling to pay this debt!!! I decline to pay this debt.”
- The defendant sent the plaintiff another letter, verifying the debt and including copies of statements and an account transaction history.
- The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit, claiming that this letter violated Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA, which mandates that a debt collector cease communication once a consumer requests it in writing. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was obligated to stop communication after receiving the March 18 letter.
- The defendant’s stance was that the letter from the plaintiff wasn’t just a request to cease communications, but also a dispute, and that sending the verification information was not a violation of the statute.
The ruling: Judge Julie R. Rubin of the District Court for the District of Maryland, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the defendant’s actions did not violate the FDCPA. Judge Rubin reasoned that the plaintiff’s letter was not simply a request to cease communication but also a dispute of the debt.
- The judge highlighted that the language in the plaintiff’s letter — “I’m unwilling to pay this debt!!! I decline to pay this debt” — not only refused to pay but also implicitly questioned the debt’s validity. The court pointed out that under the FDCPA, when a consumer disputes a debt, the collector is permitted to continue communication to verify the debt, which is exactly what the defendant did.
- The judge also referred to prior cases where courts held that a consumer’s simultaneous dispute and refusal to pay could waive the cease communication request under the FDCPA, especially when verification is provided.
