A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff did in fact dispute a debt when, during a conversation with a representative of the defendant, he said, “the balance seems to be a little off.”
The Background: The plaintiff noted an item on his credit report from the defendant. The balance on the tradeline was $903. The original creditor was Fortiva Credit Card.
- The same day, the plaintiff called the defendant. During the call, when asked if he wanted to make a payment on the account, he said, “Um, no, I was so basically I was just calling because I seen an account reporting on my credit report, and, uh, I just wanted to double check and verify everything, but the balance seems to be a little off. But I’m calling to know who the creditor name is.”
- After being told the name of the creditor, the plaintiff said, “Okay. Thank you for that information. That’s all I needed.”
- About six weeks later, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, accusing the defendant of violating Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA because it did not communicate to the credit reporting agencies that the debt was disputed.
The Ruling: The defendant argued in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiff did not dispute the debt during the call with the representative. The plaintiff never stated during the call that he did not owe the balance, the defendant claimed.
- Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA prohibits collectors from communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that disputed debt is disputed.
- At this stage of the proceedings, the court must view the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, noted Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- By calling into question the accuracy of the information found on his credit report, the plaintiff disputed the debt, Judge Slomsky ruled, although he did note that the dispute was not as obvious as it could have been, writing, “While this dispute language is not the strongest way in which to dispute a debt, it is sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage of a case.”
