A District Court judge in Montana has awarded a plaintiff more than $15,000 in fees and damages in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case after the defendant allegedly withdrew $240 in extra payments after the debt had been settled.
The background:The case stems from a dispute over debt payments between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff settled a debt with the defendant — a credit card debt allegedly incurred by his ex-wife, but the defendant allegedly withdrew an additional $240 in payments after the settlement was completed. The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA because the unauthorized withdrawals were an example of unfair practices.
- The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s actions not only violated the terms of the settlement but also caused unnecessary financial hardship. The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the defendant’s conduct reflected a lack of respect for the established terms of the settlement and showed disregard for the protections afforded to consumers under the FDCPA.
- The plaintiff claimed to be on Social Security disability and had been diagnosed with depression, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and borderline personality disorder. He also claimed to have been threatened by representatives of the defendant that he would be thrown in jail, and had money in his bank account seized, and his Social Security checks garnished.
- The plaintiff testified he was“given the run around” by the defendant when he attempted to address the discrepancies surrounding the additional payments. As a result of the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff “had significant trouble sleeping” and he began taking heartburn and blood pressure medication.
The ruling: Judge Dana L. Christensen of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana issued the ruling, awarding the plaintiff $15,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.
- Judge Christensen noted that the defendant’s withdrawal of the extra payments, despite the debt being settled, was an inappropriate attempt to collect more than was owed.
- Not helping the defendant’s case was the fact that it did not answer the complaint or otherwise appear to be involved in the case in any way.
