A District Court judge in Washington has denied a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act case, ruling that an unpaid fee for a Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles driver history printout may qualify as a “debt” under the FDCPA because the plaintiff voluntarily requested the service at a stated price.
The background: The dispute started with a $7 purchase.
- The plaintiff requested a printout of his driver history from the Nevada DMV, which cost $7. He attempted to pay by electronic check, but the payment was returned, and the DMV tacked on a $25 returned item fee and a penalty of at least $100.
- Last year, the plaintiff noticed a DMV-related tradeline on his credit report for a past-due balance of $132, which the defendant had reported to the three nationwide credit reporting agencies while attempting to collect the balance.
- The plaintiff sent the defendant a written dispute and request for validation, alleging the defendant failed to reasonably investigate the accuracy of the balance and continued trying to collect an obligation he claimed he did not validly owe.
- The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant and several of its executives of violating the FDCPA and the FCRA. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the DMV balance was not a “debt” under the FDCPA because the plaintiff never negotiated the fees, making the obligation more like a tax or fine than a consumer transaction.
The ruling: Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the motion, ruling the defendants had not shown the obligation falls outside the FDCPA’s definition of a debt.
- The FDCPA covers obligations arising from consensual transactions for personal, family, or household purposes, and Judge Whitehead ruled the plaintiff’s purchase fit that description because he voluntarily requested the printout and accepted its stated price. “The FDCPA does not ask whether the buyer haggled,” the judge wrote, comparing the situation to parking in a lot with posted prices.
- The defendants pointed to a Nevada statute allowing the DMV to charge fees for use of its records, but the judge wrote that “a statute that authorizes a fee is not a statute that imposes one,” noting nobody in Nevada is required to buy a driver history printout.
- The judge distinguished cases involving traffic fines and mandatory garbage collection fees, which courts have found are more like taxes and fall outside the statute.
- Judge Whitehead stopped short of ruling the obligation is a debt, writing that question, along with whether the $25 fee and $100 penalty would qualify on their own, awaits a fuller record.
- The judge also denied the plaintiff’s request for an expedited schedule and his cross motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was not properly filed under the court’s local rules.
- Eight days after the ruling was issued, the parties filed a notice informing the court that they had reached a settlement and would be filing dismissal documents once the agreement is executed.
