3rd Circ. Puts Debtors 1st In FDCPA Case

by Blank Rome LLP
Contact

Law360 - August 14, 2014

In McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmeig LLP, the Third Circuit recently held that debtors are not required to dispute a debt under Section 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., prior to filing suit with respect to that debt under the statute. The Third Circuit is the first federal appeals court to address this issue and, in doing so, it contradicted the decisions from several district courts.

Section 1692g(b) of the FDCPA provides that, if a “consumer notifies the debt collector in writing ... that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed,” the debt collector must “cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt ... and a copy of such verification ... is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.” Section 1692g(c) further provides that “the failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.”

In McLaughlin, the borrower entered into a mortgage with CitiMortgage Inc. in October 2005 and subsequently became delinquent on his payments based on what was deemed to be a lender error. As a result of the default, CitiMortgage referred the account to Phelan Hallinan & Shmieg LLP. Phelan sent the borrower a notice dated June 7, 2010, which included information concerning the amount of debt owed as of May 18, 2010, including attorney’s fees and title search fees. In lieu of requesting verification of the debt from Phelan, McLaughlin filed a purported class action complaint alleging various violations of the FDCPA, including a claim that Phelan had violated Section 1692e by misrepresenting that they had performed legal services in connection with the loan prior to May 18, 2010.

The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that McLaughlin could not bring suit under the FDCPA without first disputing the debt pursuant to the FDCPA’s debt validation procedure. McLaughlin filed an amended complaint, and the district court issued another opinion reiterating that McLaughlin was required to follow the debt validation procedure set forth in Section 1692g.

On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s order and held that disputing the debt under Section 1692g is not a prerequisite to filing suit under the FDCPA. The circuit court held, “The statute’s text provides no indication that Congress intended to require debtors to dispute their debts under Section 1692g before filing suit under Section 1692e, and in fact, the statutory language suggests the opposite.”

The Third Circuit construed Section 1692g(c)’s prohibition of interpreting failure to dispute the debt as an admission of liability to mean that disputing the debt is optional, and suggested that it is no accident that the statute does not expressly require a debt validation request prior to filing suit. The circuit court also emphasized that the FDCPA is a “remedial statute,” which requires application of the “least sophisticated debtor” standard to communications between lenders and debtors. Thus, debtors should not be presumed to understand that disputing the debt under Section 1692g may be a prerequisite to filing suit under the statute, and should be permitted to file suit regardless of whether they dispute the debt before doing so. The court also cautioned that requiring debtors to dispute the debt prior to filing suit under the FDCPA would allow debt collectors to avoid liability for misleading statements on the sole basis that the debtor did not dispute the debt, which would frustrate the FDCPA’s purpose of ensuring that debt collectors act responsibly.

This decision is a notable departure from the position taken by several district courts, including the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For example, in Lorandeau v. Capital Collection Services, the plaintiff filed an action under the FDCPA related to a notice she received regarding debt she owed to Abington Memorial Hospital. The notice contained information regarding the plaintiff’s right to dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days of receipt of the notice. Although the plaintiff believed she did not owe the debt to Abington Memorial Hospital, she did not take any steps to confirm whether she owed the debt, and brought an action against the defendant for various violations of the FDCPA. The district court noted that, while the “least sophisticated debtor” standard is intended to protect consumers, it also presumes a “basic level of understanding and willingness to read with care.” The court held that because the plaintiff did not request validation of the debt or take any other action to contest the debt, she was precluded from bringing a claim based upon the defendant’s attempt to collect an invalid debt.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut took a similar position in Lindbergh v. Transworld Systems Inc., which highlighted some of the arguments in favor of requiring debtors to dispute the debt prior to filing suit under the FDCPA. In Lindbergh, the defendant was hired by a doctor’s office to send collection notices to patients owing debts to the doctor. The defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff including a statement notifying him of his right to dispute the debt under Section 1692g, but he did not respond. Instead, the plaintiff responded to a subsequent notice by claiming that collection of the debt was time barred and the defendant was therefore in violation of the FDCPA, and demanded $1,500 to avoid litigation. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for violations of the FDCPA. The court questioned why the plaintiff chose to “impose the significant burden of litigation” on the parties and the court, “instead of simply following the cost-effective procedures provided by the FDCPA.” The court described the debt validation procedure as a method of avoiding litigation “except where a debt collector has behaved knowingly, or at least recklessly, in violation of the statute.”

In McLaughlin, the Third Circuit agreed that disputing the debt prior to filing suit may be a more time and cost-efficient approach in many cases, but did not consider these factors to be a basis for requiring debtors to do so. Rather, the circuit court noted that in the absence of such a requirement, these considerations would still serve as an incentive for debtors to voluntarily dispute the debt prior to filing suit. Ultimately, the arguments raised in the aforementioned cases were outweighed by the court’s focus on protecting consumers and holding debt collectors accountable for violations of the FDCPA.

Accordingly, the McLaughlin decision establishes that a debtor’s failure to dispute the debt pursuant to Section 1692g will not likely be a basis for dismissal of claims brought under Section 1692e of the FDCPA in the Third Circuit. Until other federal appellate courts have the opportunity to decide this issue, debt collectors and mortgage servicers should continue to be diligent in their compliance with the requirements of Section 1692g, but should also be prepared to defend against claims brought under the FDCPA that are not preceded by a request for debt validation.

The authors acknowledge editorial assistance from Francis X. Crowley.

"3rd Circ. Puts Debtors 1st In FDCPA Case," by Wayne Streibich and Louise Bowes appeared in the August 14, 2014 edition of Law360. To learn more, please click here or visit www.law360.com. Reprinted with permission from Law360.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Blank Rome LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Blank Rome LLP
Contact
more
less

Blank Rome LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!