A District Court judge in Illinois has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case involving a printing error that mis-identified a fee in a notice that was sent to a consumer.
The background: The case stemmed from an eviction and collection action filed by a law firm on behalf of a condominium association against a unit owner. The notice of debt attached to the eviction complaint listed $250 in “mailing costs” and a $125 “unit owner expense.” The consumer paid the full $2,657.32 sought in the complaint but later filed suit, alleging that both charges were unauthorized and violated the FDCPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
- According to the filings, the law firm and property manager explained that the “mailing cost” line was a misprint; the $250 actually represented legal fees, but the amount had been shifted down one line in the notice.
- The consumer claimed that even if the amount was correct, mislabeling it as a mailing cost was deceptive under the FDCPA.
The ruling: Judge Manish S. Shah of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois disagreed with the plainitff. He found that both charges were authorized under the condominium declaration, which allowed the association to recover “costs of said suit, and other fees and expenses together with legal interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Because the declaration explicitly permitted the recovery of such expenses, the court ruled there was no violation of either the FDCPA or the ICFA.
- As for the alleged misprint, Judge Shah concluded that the mistake did not rise to the level of a false or misleading representation. “The debt notice did not misrepresent the character or amount of fees,” he wrote. “Whether that was $250 for legal fees or mailing costs, either were allowed under the condo declaration and it was clear the fees were related to the eviction action.”
- With no underlying statutory violation, the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim also failed. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, noting that any amendment would be futile since “the fees charged here are allowed under the condo’s declaration and therefore are valid under the Condominium Property Act.”
