There are rulings that you read because they are informative and there are rulings that you read because they are entertaining. We have a plaintiff who is referred to by the judge as a sovereign citizen and the phrase “wet-ink signature” is mentioned. Guess which one this is? A District Court judge in Wisconsin has granted a credit union’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for all the reasons you might expect a judge to do so when dealing with this type of situation.
The background: The plaintiff, who lives in Wisconsin, took out a loan from the defendant, which is based in Michigan, to buy property in Colorado. The defendant does not accept membership applications from residents of Wisconsin.
- The issue that led to the lawsuit being filed were three “Debt Validation Notices” that the plaintiff sent to the defendant, seeking proof of the alleged debt obligation and ownership records, a complete chain of title establishing a valid ownership interest, and a certified copy of the original, wet-ink signed promissory note.
- When he was not provided with those documents, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Section 1692g of the FDCPA.
The ruling: Aside from characterizing his requests as debt validation notices, which Judge Byron B. Conway of the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington noted is something that a creditor or collector is supposed to provide, not a consumer, the judge concluded that the plaintiff was disputing the debt, in light of the complaint’s reference to 1692g of the FDCPA. The problem, Judge Conway noted, is that the notices sent by the plaintiff specifically state that he was not disputing the debt, but “merely seeking validation of your claim.”
- On top of that, the plaintiff was not entitled to any of the documents he requested in his validation notice, Judge Conway ruled, writing, “In sum, [the plaintiff] was not entitled to what he demanded, and consequently [the defendant’s] failure to provide the information he requested could not have violated the FDCPA.”
