Firm is "Debt Collector" Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act When It Collects For Its Own Account a Debt That Was in Default When Acquired
MCKINNEY v. CADLEWAY PROPERTIES, INC. (November 13, 2008)
Versia McKinney’s sewer backed up in her Chicago home in 1996 and caused substantial damage. McKinney took out a disaster assistance loan of $5200 from the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). At some point, McKinney stopped making payments on the loan. The SBA sold the loan. It eventually was sold to Cadleway Properties, Inc. (“Cadleway”). Cadleway sent McKinney a letter in September 2004. The letter informed McKinney that Cadleway had purchased the debt and that McKinney should make payments to Cadleway. The back of the letter contained a “Validation of Debt Notice” intended to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”). The notice stated that: a) McKinney owed $4,370.02, b) McKinney had 30 days to tell Cadleway that she disputed the debt, and c) Cadleway would assume the debt was valid if McKinney did not so dispute. At the bottom of the form, McKinney was asked to confirm the amount of the balance as stated by Cadleway or to state what she believed to be the correct balance. McKinney filed an action against Cadleway alleging that the notice letter violated the Act. She only sought statutory damages and attorney’s fees. The court below held that: a) the obligation was a “debt” under the Act, b) Cadleway was a “debt collector” under the Act, and c) the notice letter was confusing on its face to an unsophisticated consumer and therefore in violation of the Act. The court granted summary judgment to McKinney. Cadleway appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Manion (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), Rovner (concurring in part, dissenting in part), and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court stated that the purpose of the Act was to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair debt collection practices. It applies only to “debt collectors,” as that term is defined in the Act. The substantive section relevant to McKinney’s complaint is the requirement that a debt collector notify a consumer of her right to dispute the validity of, and receive a verification of, the debt. The Court first addressed Cadleway’s status as a “debt collector.” The majority on that issue (Sykes and Rovner) relied on the language of the Act and the Court’s prior decision in Schlosser to hold that Cadleway was a debt collector. The Court stated that the terms “debt collector” and “creditor” in the Act are mutually exclusive. The determinative factor in deciding which term applies to Cadleway is whether the debt was in default at the time Cadleway acquired it. Since McKinney’s debt was in default, Cadleway was a debt collector. With respect to the notice, the majority on that issue (Sykes and Manion) stated that the Act requires the debt collector to provide an initial communication with certain disclosures to the consumer. The Act requires no particular form but the disclosures must not be confusing to the “unsophisticated consumer.” Normally, the majority noted, the plaintiff would bring forth evidence of confusion. Here, McKinney introduced no extrinsic evidence of confusion. In fact, McKinney testified that she herself was not confused by the notice. The majority conceded that a notice letter could be so clearly confusing on its face that summary judgment could be granted. However, it did not believe that McKinney’s notice was such a case. The Court specifically addressed the balance confirmation request that the district court had found to be confusing. The majority found the notice to be clear. It simply asked McKinney to confirm the amount of the debt or dispute it. The notice complied with the Act. The Court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Cadleway.
Judge Manion concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Judge Manion agreed with the Court’s opinion on the validity of the notice letter. He noted that, given the outcome on that issue, the Court need not have resolved the “debt collector” issue. Having done so, however, Judge Manion wrote to express his disagreement with the resolution of that issue. The exclusionary language in the definition of “creditor” and the definition of “debt collector” in the Act refer to a person who collects a debt “for another” or “due another,” respectively. Cadleway was not collecting the debt for another. Cadleway purchased the debt and was collecting it for its own account. Judge Manion conceded that Schlosser held that the person holding the debt was a “debt collector” in similar circumstances. He pointed out, however, that the issue of collecting for another never came up. Judge Manion would not have been found Cadleway to be a “debt collector.”
Judge Rovner also wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rovner concurred with the majority’s resolution of the “debt collector” issue without additional comment. She disagreed with the resolution of the validity of the notice letter, however. Judge Rovner found the letter “clearly confusing” on its face. She focused solely on the balance confirmation request section. Judge Rovner found the paragraph confusing, particularly to a consumer who may believe she owes something but has no records or other way of computing a different amount. The letter implies that the confirmation is obligatory, and also implies that failure to do so will damage one’s credit rating. Under the terms of the Act, the creditor can simply respond that she disputes the debt collector’s proffered total. Judge Rovner found the letter different from, and at least to some degree contrary to, the terms of the Act and therefore a violation of the Act.
