An Illinois State Appeals Court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling in favor of a collection operation that was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because, among other claims, it allegedly engaged in harassing behavior against the plaintiff; however, it was the plaintiff who made “threatening, intimidating, and vulgar statements.”
The background: The plaintiff filed a pro se small claims complaint alleging violations of the FDCPA, the Illinois Collection Agency Act (CAA), and an invasion of privacy claim under tort law. The dispute stemmed from the defendant’s attempt to collect a debt of $2,487. The plaintiff claimed the collection agency harassed him, misrepresented the amount owed, and improperly reported the debt to credit bureaus.
- The defendant, however, denied wrongdoing and maintained that it complied with all legal requirements.
- At trial, evidence showed the collection agency had verified the debt with the original creditor, provided documentation to the plaintiff, and even reduced the balance during the process.
- Testimony also revealed that the plaintiff repeatedly called the defendant and used abusive language, while the defendant had contacted the plaintiff only once by phone before ceasing further calls at his request.
- A state court judge ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had not proven violations of the FDCPA and that the CAA does not provide a private right of action
The ruling: The appellate court upheld the decision, noting that the record supported the trial court’s conclusion.
- Importantly, the appellate judges highlighted that the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion had been stricken because small claims rules require prior court approval before filing such motions.
- The appeals court also emphasized the inadequacy of the plaintiff’s record on appeal, which limited the court’s ability to review his claims. “Any doubt arising from an incomplete record will be resolved against the appellant,” the court wrote, citing precedent. Ultimately, the appellate panel agreed that the defendant acted within the law, complied with verification obligations, and did not engage in harassment.
- A telling line from the trial court’s findings was that the defendant went “way beyond” its verification duties by seeking additional information from the creditor and providing the plaintiff with extra documentation. Conversely, the plaintiff’s conduct was characterized as harassing, “threatening, intimidating, and vulgar.”
