When is a refusal to pay and request to cease communications not a refusal to pay and request to cease communications? When it’s couched in a seven-paragraph letter about Christmas, a Magistrate Court judge in California has ruled, recommending that a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case be granted.
The background: The plaintiff alleged that after receiving a collection letter in January 2024 about an unpaid debt, he responded with a letter asserting “I refuse to pay the debt” and invoking the FDCPA’s cease-communication protections.
- Despite his request, the plaintiff claimed, the defendant sent multiple follow-up emails attempting to collect on the debt, causing the plaintiff emotional distress including anger, anxiety, and difficulty concentrating.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Section1692c(c) of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from continuing communications once a consumer has sent written notice refusing to pay or requesting no further contact.
The ruling: But just wait a minute, Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the District Court for the Eastern District of California, ruled.
- While the plaintiff did not attach his letter to his complaint, the defendant did submit a copy of it.
- The refusal to pay was a seven-paragraph essay largely discussing the traditions, music, and food of the Christmas season.
- Only a single sentence in the middle noted: “The act of giving is not limited to material goods, as many volunteer their time and resources to help those less fortunate during the season and this is why I refuse to pay this debt.”
- Judge McAuliffe found that the buried statement failed to provide clear and unequivocal notice under the statute. “[T]here is a difference between unequivocally refusing to pay a debt and refusing to pay a debt during the Christmas season,” the court observed.
- Because the refusal language was ambiguous, seasonal, and sent weeks after Christmas, the court held it was insufficient to trigger the protections of the FDCPA.
- Citing a similar Florida case where a consumer embedded a refusal to pay inside a love poem, the judge noted that consumers bear the burden of giving unmistakable written notice. “[W]ithout proper notice by a consumer, the debt collector’s obligation to cease communications is not triggered,” the ruling explained.
