Three may be the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, but it is not enough activity for a law firm to be considered a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a District Court judge in Minnesota has ruled. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of a law firm and its attorney, finding that their limited involvement in debt-related legal actions was insufficient to qualify them as “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, while also denying a motion for summary judgment from the plaintiff.
The background: The case stemmed from a family law dispute in which the plaintiff was ordered by an arbitrator to pay over $40,000 to his ex-wife. The attorney representing the ex-wife initiated a garnishment summons against the plaintiff’s bank account.
- The garnishment summons allegedly stated that a judgment had been entered by a Minnesota state court referee, when it had only been signed off on by an arbitrator.
- The plaintiff filed suit against the attorney, accusing him and his firm of violating the FDCPA by citing false or misleading representations.
The ruling: Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the District Court for the District of Minnesota focused exclusively on whether the defendants qualified as “debt collectors” under the FDCPA using two tests: whether debt collection was their principal purpose, or whether they regularly collected debts. The judge found neither applied.
- Despite the plaintiff citing three past cases involving debt-related garnishments dating back three years, Judge Provinzino found these to be “isolated or incidental” and far from constituting regular debt collection. “Taking one debt-collection case per year falls far short of the activity expected,” the judge wrote, citing case law where hundreds of actions were needed to meet the threshold.
- Her ruling emphasized that the defendants had no dedicated debt collection staff, no systems in place for such work, and no ongoing relationships with clients for debt collection purposes.
- “Far from being engaged in consistent, customary, or constant debt collection, the facts show that [Defendants] only occasionally engage in debt-collection activity,” Judge Provinzino wrote.
