Let’s go to the videotape. A Magistrate judge in Florida has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case over whether the plaintiff authorized a one-time withdrawal from her bank account or a series of withdrawals.
The background: The plaintiff initially brought five claims under the FDCPA and Florida’s Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), accusing the defendant of harassment and of initiating unauthorized bank withdrawals.
- However, at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff abandoned all but one claim — alleging that the defendant violated Section 1692f of the FDCPA by attempting to withdraw money without proper authorization.
- At issue was whether the plaintiff consented to recurring monthly payments or only to a single payment. The plaintiff asserted that a phone call with the defendant established her intent to authorize a one-time payment.
- The defendant argued that the same call made clear the plaintiff had agreed to a monthly payment arrangement.
The ruling: Judge Daniel C. Irick of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida sided with the defendant, finding that the call recording left no doubt the plaintiff had authorized at least one payment attempt on March 28, 2024. Because the three attempted withdrawals in early April were tied to that authorization—and failed only due to insufficient funds—the court concluded no FDCPA violation had occurred.
- “No reasonable jury could return a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor on the §1692f claim,” the judge wrote.
- The court emphasized that the plaintiff confirmed the monthly payment arrangement multiple times and agreed to a $150 charge on the 28th of each month, including confirming that March 28 was a Thursday — evidence she knew what she was authorizing.
- Judge Irick wrote, “Given the context from the beginning of the conversation, Plaintiff acknowledged:
- A distinction between settling the account in full and continuing with the $150 per month payment schedule;
- That a monthly payment “arrangement” existed; and
- That she was not prepared to pay the full balance on the account until she received her tax return. Defendant made clear that Plaintiff’s monthly payments would continue unless Plaintiff called to “pay it off before the time scheduled for the next payment.”
