A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that the plaintiff’s two-word email reply of “offer accepted” created a binding contract that she could not undo the next day by demanding an extra $500, while also ruling that the defendants could not hold the plaintiff to the terms of a formal written release she never signed.
The background: The plaintiff, who represented herself, filed suit in state court in Baltimore, accusing the defendants of failing to validate a debt, failing to correct a credit reporting error, improperly reporting the debt, engaging in deceptive collection practices, and misrepresenting the status of the debt. The defendants removed the case to federal court, construing the claims as arising at least in part under the FDCPA.
- Before removal, defense counsel emailed the plaintiff an offer to forgive the debt and request deletion of any remaining tradelines in exchange for a confidential release and dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, with the offer set to expire that Friday.
- The plaintiff replied the same evening, “Good evening offer accepted and I will look for the offer in writing.”
- When defense counsel sent a four-page written release for signature days later, the plaintiff did not sign it. Instead, she emailed back seeking $500 to cover her “expense of fillings, gas and commute,” along with a paid-in-full letter and credit report deletion, and later provided her Zelle information for the payment.
- Defense counsel refused, writing, “We are settled at the very clear terms agreed upon below. It is too late for you to try to negotiate something different,” and moved to enforce the settlement. The plaintiff did not file a response opposing the motion.
The ruling: Judge Adam B. Abelson of the District Court for the District of Maryland granted the motion in part, holding the parties to the terms of defense counsel’s original email but not to the expanded written release.
- Judge Abelson ruled the email was a clear offer with definite terms, and the plaintiff’s “offer accepted” reply formed an enforceable contract under Maryland law. Once formed, the contract could not be changed by one side’s later demands, making the $500 request legally meaningless.
- The judge noted the plaintiff conceded the point in her own court filing, acknowledging that she “emailed yes” before deciding she wanted to think it over.
- Quoting Fourth Circuit precedent, the judge observed that “[h]aving second thoughts about the results of a valid settlement agreement does not justify setting aside an otherwise valid agreement.”
- But the judge rejected the defendants’ request to force the plaintiff to execute the formal written release, ruling it contained new terms she never agreed to, including a confidentiality provision. The judge added that even if confidentiality had been an enforceable term, the defendants waived it by filing their motion on the public docket.
- The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the defendants must perform on their agreement to forgive the debt and request tradeline deletion.
