A Magistrate judge in Maryland has recommended granting summary judgment to a defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit, concluding that trying to collect a debt after the statute of limitations has run is not, by itself, unlawful.
The background: The plaintiff, who represented himself, sued a debt buyer over its efforts to collect on an account that had originated with a lender.
- The plaintiff alleged the defendant kept pursuing collection after the statute of limitations period had expired, reported inaccurate and derogatory information to the credit reporting agencies, and failed to send a debt validation letter. The plaintiff also alleged improper service, reliance on falsified documents, and the absence of any judgment on the account.
- The plaintiff argued the collection activity and credit reporting caused significant emotional distress and anxiety and derailed an effort to secure financing for a home purchase, and sought more than $3.6 million in damages.
- Over the life of the case, the plaintiff filed more than two dozen motions that the court described as “improper and frivolous,” prompting an order barring any further filings without first obtaining the court’s permission.
The ruling: Judge Erin Aslan of the District Court for the District of Maryland recommended that the court grant the defendant’s motion, deny the plaintiff’s motions, and enter judgment for the defendant.
- Judge Aslan concluded the plaintiff produced no evidence supporting any element of an FDCPA claim, and that the core theory failed as a matter of law because “[c]ollection of a time-barred debt is permissible.” In Maryland, the judge explained, a limitations statute supplies a defense to collection but does not extinguish the underlying debt, so seeking voluntary payment does not run afoul of the statute.
- The credit reporting claim could not proceed either, the judge found, because consumers have no private right of action to sue a furnisher for inaccurate reporting under the subsection the plaintiff invoked. The plaintiff also never identified what information was supposedly inaccurate.
- The FDCPA claim was independently barred by the statute’s one-year filing deadline, the judge added, because the collection letter at issue predated the lawsuit by more than two years.
- Notably, the judge declined to hand the defendant a victory on procedural grounds. She rejected its bid to dismiss the case as a sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to appear at his deposition, and its argument that unanswered requests for admission should be treated as admitted, reasoning that the self-represented plaintiff was never warned those missteps could result in dismissal. The recommendation rests on the merits instead.
