An Indiana Appeals Court has affirmed the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case against a collection operation that centered over an alleged dispute that may have been made against the plaintiff before the defendant filed a collection lawsuit.
The background: The debt in question is a medical debt that was incurred after a healthcare provider treated the plaintiffs’ child.
- The defendant sent collection notices to the plaintiffs, and one of the plaintiffs called the defendant’s attorney to discuss the debt because, in a separate case, the defendant had attempted to collect another person’s medical debts from the plaintiffs.
- When the debt wasn’t paid, the defendant filed a small claims court lawsuit to recover the balance.
- The plaintiffs sought to dismiss the suit on the grounds that they disputed the debt during the call with the attorney and that the defendant never provided validation information, which it was required to do before initiating the lawsuit. They asserted the attorney said he would send a billing statement that was never received.
- After the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the collection lawsuit was denied, they sought to obtain a copy of the recording of the call and introduce it as evidence, but that request was denied.
The ruling: Ultimately, the plaintiffs failed to produce any written evidence to prove the existence of a dispute. At the hearing to discuss the motion to dismiss, the trial judge remarked of the plaintiffs’ alleged correspondence, “I find it hard to believe when it’s always the magic document that’s missing that it ever existed.”
- By the time the plaintiffs sought discovery of a recording of the disputed call, the FDCPA defense had already been resolved against them, rendering the request “no longer relevant to this debt collection action,” the court held.
- The appeals court also declined to reweigh credibility determinations or revisit waived arguments regarding additional FDCPA defenses, concluding the firm’s collection judgment must stand.
