The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment in favor of a debt collector in a consumer’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit after the consumer failed to brief the only claim that remained alive on appeal.
The background: The case grew out of a consumer’s attempt to stop a collector from contacting him about two debts he found on his credit report.
- The plaintiff claimed he became aware of two unpaid medical debts when reviewing his credit report. That same day, he sent a letter to the defendant, refusing to pay the debts and saying, “don’t contact me about this debt.” The defendant received the letter and coded the accounts to prevent future communication attempts.
- About two weeks later, the plaintiff sent two more letters, this time disputing the debts and asking the defendant to investigate them.
- The defendant responded with two letters stating that it had investigated, found the debts valid, and would continue collection. The letters were sent “solely for the purpose of responding to [his] dispute,” and told the plaintiff they would be the last contact he received unless he sent something that required a response.
- The plaintiff then sued, alleging that the two response letters broke the statute’s rule against contacting a consumer who has asked the collector to cease communications.
- After the defendant moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff raised a new theory for the first time: that the letters violated a separate provision requiring a collector to halt collection until it verifies a disputed debt. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the new claim was not properly before it and that the original claim failed because the dispute letters had waived the earlier request to stop contact.
The ruling: The Appeals Court affirmed the ruling, addressing the age-old dilemma: what do when a consumer demands communications stop and then disputes the debt.
- Some courts, the panel noted, have found that a consumer who disputes a debt waives an earlier cease-communication request, meaning a verification letter would not break the rule. The panel observed that the Fifth Circuit had not yet decided the issue.
- But the court declined to resolve it, because the plaintiff had forfeited his only live claim. His complaint pleaded only the cease-communication theory, yet his appeal argued only the verification theory. He never argued that the trial court was wrong to find the verification claim missing from his complaint, and instead “merely recycle[d] the same arguments the district court already rejected.”
- Because a party forfeits an argument “by failing to adequately brief” it on appeal, the panel held the cease-communication claim was gone and affirmed the judgment.
