In Their Opinion : Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

SHLAHTICHMAN v. 1-800 CONTACTS (AUGUST 10, 2010)

In June of 2009, Eduard Shlahtichman purchased contact lenses from defendant 1-800 Contacts using the Internet. Shlahtichman used his credit card for the purchase. The company sent him an e-mail confirming his purchase. The e-mail contained the expiration date of his credit card. Shlahtichman brought suit pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"). FACTA prohibits a merchant from "print[ing]" a credit card expiration date on a receipt "provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale." That restriction applies only to electronically printed receipts. Judge Darrah (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the suit on two grounds: that an e-mail order confirmation does not constitute printing and that an e-mail order confirmation is not provided "at the point of the sale." Shlahtichman appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner, and Hamilton affirmed. Much of the appeal centers on the meaning of the word "print." Since it is not defined in the statute, the Court looked to its ordinary meaning. Although recognizing that a minority of courts have extended its meaning to computer displayed receipts, the Court concluded that the Act applies only to paper receipts. It relied on dictionary definitions, the overall context and content of the Act, the ready application of such an approach to face-to-face transactions versus a host of questions in the computer context, Congress' determination of the effective date of the Act using the year the printing device was first put into use, and the lack of any reference to Internet or e-mail in the Act in light of Congress' many such references in other statutes. Alternatively, the Court noted that dismissal was proper because Shlahtichman alleged no actual injury, statutory damages are available only for willful violations, and 1-800 Contacts' interpretation of the statute was reasonable, even if wrong, and could not support a finding of willfulness.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 SIEGEL v. SHELL OIL CO. (July 30, 2010)

Michael Siegel is a retail gasoline consumer. He brought a class action against several major oil companies. The complaint alleged that the oil companies violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") and were unjustly enriched as a result of their concerted effort to reduce the supply of gasoline, thereby increasing its price. Judge St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) denied class certification and entered summary judgment for the defendants. Siegel appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer and Sykes and District Judge Griesbach affirmed. The Court noted that an Illinois claim for unfair conduct under the ICFA requires both a substantial injury that could not reasonably have been avoided and that the injury be the proximate result of defendants' conduct. Addressing first the class certification issue, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common issues of fact did not predominate over individual issues. For example, each class member's gasoline purchasing habits would have to be determined in order to establish causation. On the merits, the Court concluded that Siegel's own testimony precluded a finding of proximate causation. He testified that he could and did purchase gasoline from other oil companies, that he continued to purchase gasoline from the defendant oil companies, and that many factors were relevant to his buying decisions. Finally, an unjust enrichment claim is not a stand-alone claim. Here, Siegel’s claim rests on his allegation of unfair conduct. Having rejected the ICFA claim, the Court rejected the unjust enrichment claim as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

PELLA CORP. v. SALTZMAN (May 20, 2010)

Pella Corp. is in the business of manufacturing and selling home windows. It has sold in excess of 6 million "ProLine" casement windows. When a wood rotting problem arose, Pella set up a customer service program to compensate affected purchasers. A group of those purchasers brought a class action. The suit alleges that Pella committed consumer fraud when it failed to disclose the alleged design defect and the problems it was causing. Judge Zagel (N.D. Ill.) certified seven classes: a) a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) class of persons who own structures containing the casement windows that have not been replaced, and b) six statewide Rule 23(b)(3) classes of persons whose windows have already been replaced because of the defect. The court refused to certify causation, damages, and statute of limitations issues. Pella petitioned for leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Williams, and Tinder granted the petition and affirmed. The Court agreed that consumer fraud actions frequently present problems when treated as class actions. That does not, however, equal a general rule that they can never be so treated. Here, the principal issue is whether there is a single design defect in the window that leads to wood rot. The Court concluded that the district court was well within its discretion in deciding that the issue is best resolved in a class context. The problems inherent in treating consumer fraud cases in a class context are not present in this case. The issues are not complex, the central questions are all the same, and the class members must prove causation and damages on an individual basis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

KIM v. CARTER'S INC. (March 15, 2010)

Su Yeun Kim and Gina Polubinski purchased children's clothing at several different Carter's stores in Illinois over a period of time. Articles of clothing in the stores had individual price tags. Frequently, however, Carter's displayed signs announcing discounts off individual prices. Kim and Polubinski each filed separate class actions, alleging that any savings were fictitious because the prices listed were artificially inflated . The complaints alleged breach of contract and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The district court granted Carter’s motion to dismiss the complaints. Kim and Polubinski appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne, and Tinder affirmed. With respect to the breach of contract count, the Court concluded that Carter's fulfilled its contractual obligations. It provided articles of clothing to the plaintiffs at an agreed upon price. The Court rejected plaintiffs' interpretation that the sales contract required Carter's to apply the discount to an undisclosed, fair price instead of the tag price. With respect to the statutory claim, however, the Court found that the allegations of the complaints did sufficiently allege a violation. However, the Act requires a private party to show "actual damage." Here, the plaintiffs agreed to pay a certain price for the clothing. They have not alleged that the clothing is actually worth less than what they paid or that they could have purchased it elsewhere for less. Having concluded that the plaintiffs suffered no actual pecuniary harm, the Court held that they could not state a claim under the Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HUKIC v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES (November 20, 2009)

Avdo Hukic took out a mortgage in 1997. The monthly obligation was $1335. The agreement allowed him to pay taxes and insurance directly -- as long as he provided proof of payment to the lender. Through no fault of his own, his April 1998 payment was processed for $200 less than the required amount. Although the lender notified Hukic of the error, he took no steps to rectify it. Instead. Hukic continued to pay the correct amount each month, but the lender always considered him one month in arrears because of the continuing shortage. At about the same time, the lender advised Hukic that it would start to pay the taxes and insurance unless Hukic provided proof of payment. Hukic did not respond. The lender set up an escrow for the payments and advised Hukic of a new monthly payment amount. Hukic continued to pay the original $1335 each month. The lender, now Aurora Loan Services, reported the mortgage to credit agencies as delinquent in November of 1999. In early 2000, Aurora assigned the loan to Ocwen. Ocwen notified Hukic of his default but continued to pay the taxes and insurance. In January of 2001, Hukic's lawyer advised Aurora that he was paying his taxes directly and complained about negative information on credit reports. Hukic filed a multiple-count suit against Aurora and Ocwen. The court dismissed seven counts and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage counts. Hukic appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Evans and Williams affirmed. The Court first considered its jurisdiction-and first considered diversity jurisdiction, the basis of the original removal to federal court. The Court pointed out several problems: Aurora was a limited liability company, the citizenship of an L.L.C. is the citizenship of its members, its only member was a federally chartered savings association, the citizenship of a federally chartered savings association was in doubt under the law, a federal statute that clarified an association's citizenship was not enacted until after the date of removal, and the statute clarifying the citizenship question only applied if the association was a party in a lawsuit (instead of, as here, the member of a party). Luckily, the Court was able to bypass those issues because it concluded that the presence of the FCRA claim provided federal question jurisdiction. Since the state law claims arose out of the same nucleus of fact, they were covered by supplemental federal jurisdiction. After rejecting several procedural arguments, the Court addressed the merits. The Court affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract, tortious interference and FCRA claims. It concluded that Hukic was in default and that Aurora and Ocwen thus never provided false information to credit agencies. The Court then addressed the dismissal of the defamation claim on statute of limitations grounds. Like the jurisdictional analysis, the Court's analytic path was tortured. It included discussion of the defamation limitations period, the discovery rule, the continuing violation rule and the single publication rule. Concluding that the Illinois Supreme Court would apply neither the single publication rule nor the continuing violation rule to the facts and therefore that Hukic could maintain a claim for defamation for statements made by Aurora within a year of the filing of the suit, the Court nevertheless affirmed the dismissal. Illinois requires that special damages be pled in a defamation per quod case, which this is. Hukic alleged no harm from the reports that are actionable. Finally, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because it did not allege conduct so extreme or outrageous to state a claim under Illinois law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MURO v. TARGET CORP. (August 31, 2009)

Christine Muro held a Target "Guest Card" for a few years. In late 1999, she paid off the balance and requested that her account be closed. In 2004, Target sent her an unsolicited Visa Card. Muro never used, or even activated, the card. She brought an action under §§ 1637 and 1642 of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). With respect to § 1642, which prohibits the unsolicited issuance of a credit card, the court denied class certification. It concluded that Muro's claims were not typical of the claims of most of the proposed class (because most of the class members had an open “Guest Card” account) and that she had failed to establish numerosity with respect to the claims for which her claims were typical. Muro settled her individual § 1642 claim, reserving the right to appeal the denial of class certification. The court granted summary judgment to Target and denied class certification on the § 1637 claims. Muro appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Rovner and Evans affirmed. With respect to § 1642, the Court noted that the narrow issue was whether a named plaintiff in a putative class action could settle her individual claim and still appeal an adverse decision on class certification. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Geraghty and Roper, the Court stated that a plaintiff has to have a personal stake in the adjudication of the certification issue to maintain an appeal. The Court recognized a difference of opinion among courts as to whether a mere reservation of a right to appeal is sufficient interest to maintain an appeal. Upon reflection, the Court concluded that a voluntary settlement by a putative class plaintiff strips the plaintiffs of any personal interest in the litigation sufficient to support an appeal. Here, although Muro accepted the settlement with a reservation of her right to appeal, she retains no stake in the litigation and no right to appeal. As an aside, the Court indicated its agreement with the district court on the merits of its denial of class certification. With respect to § 1637, which requires certain disclosures before "opening" an account, the Court also agreed with the lower court. The issue on the § 1637 claim was when an account is "opened." The TILA is silent but the Federal Reserve Board regulations require the disclosures before the first transaction. Concurring with the regulation's approach, the Court noted that Muro had never activated or used her card. She had no § 1637 claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

RUTH v. TRIUMPH PARTNERSHIPS (August 17, 2009)

Triumph Partnerships purchases defaulted debt. Its sister company, Triumph Asset Services ("TAS"), is a debt collection agency. In early 2006, TAS sent letters out to a number of individuals who owed debts purchased by Triumph. The letter notified the recipient that Triumph had purchased the debt and that TAS was attempting to collect it. Sent with the notice was a separate document from Triumph stating that it collected and could share certain information about the debtor. It also provided an opportunity for the debtor to “opt out,” or instruct Triumph not to share certain information. Alice Ruth was one of the recipients of the letter. Ruth brought a class action against Triumph and TAS, alleging that the mailing violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") in that it made a false statement in connection with the collection of a debt and threatened to take illegal action. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Ruth was required to present extrinsic evidence to prove that an unsophisticated debtor would consider the notice a communication in connection with the collection of a debt and would view it as a threat to take illegal action. Ruth appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Sykes and Lawrence reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed Triumph's argument that it was not a "debt collector" and therefore not subject to the FDCPA. Citing its recent McKinney decision, the Court rejected that argument. Under McKinney (see my earlier post), the FDCPA status of a party that attempts to collect a debt that it acquired from another party depends on whether the debt was in default at the time it was acquired. Since the debts here were in default at the time they were acquired by Triumph, Triumph is a debt collector. The Court moved to the heart of the matter -- whether the mailing violated the FDCPA as a matter of law. The FDCPA violation has two elements -- the notice had to be sent "in connection with the collection of any debt" and the notice had to be false, misleading or had to threaten to take an illegal action. With respect to the "in connection with" element, the Court concluded, in a matter of first impression, that the standard is an objective one and need not be proven by extrinsic evidence. On the facts of the case, the Court stated that any reasonable fact finder would conclude that the notice was sent in connection with the attempt to collect a debt. With respect to the false/deceptive/illegal action element, the Court stated that Ruth must do more than prove a false statement -- she must prove that the statement would mislead or deceive an unsophisticated consumer. She need not, however, offer extrinsic evidence on that point in every case. Extrinsic evidence is required in those situations where the statement is possibly misleading or deceptive. Here, the Court concluded that a consumer could reach only one reasonable conclusion -- that the defendants claimed a right to disclose certain information. Since the defendants conceded that such a sharing, without consent, would have violated the FDCPA, the notice was an illegal threat as a matter of law. Finally, the Court had to address defendants' bona fide error defense. That defense protects a debt collector from liability when a violation is unintentional, is the result of a bona fide error and occurs notwithstanding the defendant's maintenance of reasonable procedures to avoid the error. That Court concluded that the defense is available for errors of law, if at all, when the debt collector relies on the opinion of an attorney or other expert in the field. Although Triumph claimed it relied on a pamphlet prepared by an attorney, the Court concluded that that was well short of the "reasonable procedures" required by the FDCPA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SWANSON v. BANK OF AMERICA (April 24, 2009)

The Court denied rehearing in a case originally decided on March 19 and reported here. The Ninth Circuit released an opinion at odds with the Court's on March 16 (and therefore not considered or discussed in the March 19 opinion), Nevertheless, the Court stuck with its analysis and remarked that the Ninth Circuit panel was at odds with an earlier, nonprecedential opinion of the same court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SWANSON v. BANK OF AMERICA (March 19, 2009)

Bank of America issued a credit card to Laura Swanson. Pursuant to the credit agreement, Bank of America could increase the interest rate if her balance exceeded her credit limit twice in any 12-month period. The higher interest rate was to take effect at the beginning of the billing cycle to which it applied. Swanson exceeded her credit limit at the close of the August 2007 and November 2007 cycles. Bank of America applied the higher interest rate effective at the beginning of the November cycle. Swanson brought suit, alleging that a Truth in Lending Act regulation precludes the imposition of a higher interest rate in that circumstance. The district court granted judgment to the bank. Swanson appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Evans affirmed. The Court first analyzed the regulation at issue. Although both the bank and Swanson argued that the regulations supported its position, the Court concluded that the regulation did not squarely address the issue at hand. It therefore consulted the commentary. The bank relies on the comment that states that no notice of the change is required if the specific change is set forth in the initial agreement. The comment gives as examples an increased rate after a lower introductory rate and an increased rate when a customer fails to keep a promised minimum account balance. Swanson, on the other hand, relies on the comment that notice must be given if the contract allows the creditor to increase the rate at its discretion. The Court noted that one appellate court and at least six trial courts had considered the issue and had all agreed with the bank's position. Finding these decisions "sensible," the Court also agreed with the bank. It pointed out that the contract between the bank and Swanson allowed the practice. An ambiguous regulation with an ambiguous commentary was not enough to override the specific contract term. Finally, the Court observed that the Federal Reserve had promulgated a new regulation that would prohibit the vary practice at issue. The new regulation is not effective until July of 2010 -- Swanson must live with the law as it stands today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MUHA v. ENCORE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC. (March 10, 2009)

Charlotte Muha, representing a class of credit card debtors, brought an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") against Encore Receivable Management, Inc. The complaint alleged that Encore violated the FDCPA by stating, in a debt collection letter, that "your original agreement with the above mentioned creditor has been revoked." Plaintiffs allege that that statement is false. The plaintiffs also claim that the statement is misleading and confusing and sought to introduce a survey to support that allegation. The lower court excluded the survey and granted summary judgment to Encore. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Tinder affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first upheld the lower court's exclusion of the survey. It concluded that the survey was improper both because the questions and answers were leading and because there was no control group that was shown the letter without the language in question. Notwithstanding the exclusion of the survey (and notwithstanding the admission at oral argument that plaintiffs could not prove damages without the survey), the Court held that plaintiffs could be entitled to statutory damages. The plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the statement was misleading. Although a survey may be the best evidence of that, is not the only potential evidence. The recipients of the letter itself may testify, allowing the judge to infer that the letter is misleading within the meaning of the FDCPA. The Court then addressed the merits of the falsity argument. The issue, it stated, was not the falsity of the statement. The Court concluded that the statement obviously meant that the credit card privileges of the recipient have been revoked. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs are entitled to attempt to prove that the statement is misleading. The Court found that the statement was confusing and noted that confusing language can have an intimidating effect on an unsophisticated consumer. It did not think the evidence was so clear on that point so as to entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment, however. It reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HAHN v. TRIUMPH PARTNERSHIPS LLC (March 4, 2009)

Triumph Partnerships acquired some overdue credit card debt from a bank, including a debt owed by Marylou Hahn. Triumph sent a letter to Hahn, stating that she had an "amount due" of $1051.91 and that she had "interest due" of $82.64. Hahn filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hahn alleged, and Triumph conceded, that the $82.64 represented the interest that had accrued only since Triumph acquired the debt. The $1051.91 included interest that had accrued prior to Triumph's acquisition of the debt. Hahn alleged, therefore, that the statement was a false representation of the debt and prohibited by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The District Court granted summary judgment to Triumph. Hahn appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Manion affirmed. The Court concluded that the letter contained no false representation. It held that an “amount” that is due can include principle, interest and other components. The Court specifically pointed out that the letter did not assert that the $82.64 was the totality of the interest that had accrued on the debt since its inception. Since the statement was not false, the Court held that it does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alternatively, the court affirmed on the ground that the statement was immaterial. The Court held that materiality is an element in a §1692e action. Since the letter accurately reported the debt and accurately computed the debt, whether it segregated the post-acquisition interest was immaterial. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WAHL v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. (February 23, 2009)

Barbara Wahl accumulated a small balance on her credit card. When she stopped using it, the balance was less than $100. Unfortunately, Wahl incurred some huge medical bills and never paid off the credit card. By the time the card issuer turned it over to Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“Midland”) in 2005 for collection, the balance (with interest and late fees) had risen to $1149.09. In February 2005, Midland sent a letter to Wahl and offered to settle for a 25% discount. When Wahl did not accept the offer, Midland sent letters again in April and August. In each of those letters, Midland included an itemization of the amount owed. In each, it referred to the $1149.09 as the “principal balance” and the rest as “accrued interest.” Wahl filed a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). She alleged that Midland’s inclusion of interest charged by the card issuer before the debt was purchased by Midland as part of the stated “principal balance” was false and a violation of the FDCPA. The district court certified the class and granted summary judgment to Midland. Wahl appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Evans and Williams affirmed. The Court first took issue with Wahl’s assertion of law that a collection letter which is false, even if not deceptive, is a FDCPA violation. The Court stated that a collection letter does not violate the FDCPA unless it would confuse the unsophisticated consumer – even if is false. The Court went further, though. It determined that the letters were not false. Since Midland had acquired the debt from the issuer, the Court decided that the $1140.09 was all “principal” from Midland’s perspective. Finally, the Court applied the unsophisticated consumer test and found that there was “no way” that the language of the letter could be confusing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SEEGER v. AFNI, INC. (December 8, 2008)

AFNI is a debt collector. Cingular is (or was) a cellular telephone service provider. Cingular contracts with individuals to provide telephone service. It typically includes in its contracts a provision that its customer is obligated to pay the fees of a collection agency and other costs Cingular incurs in enforcing its rights under the contracts. In 2004-05, Cingular sold some delinquent customer accounts to AFNI. AFNI sent collection letters to plaintiff Seeger and others. The letters stated that the recipient was responsible for collection fees. In 2005, Seeger and other plaintiffs filed suit. They alleged that AFNI’s actions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (“WCA”). The district court certified a class and granted summary judgment to the class. It held that AFNI’s action violated both the FDCPA and WCA because the owner of a debt is not allowed to impose a collection fee for its own benefit (as opposed to that it pays a third-party collector). AFNI appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Cudahy and Wood affirmed. The Court agreed that AFNI could prevail if the fee was allowed either by the contract or by Wisconsin law. It turned first to the law. Wisconsin does permit recovery of losses that are the natural and probable result of a breach of contract. The Court noted, however, that the record was silent on the issue of AFNI’s cost of debt collection and could not support a characterization of the fee as a form of allowable damages. Turning to the contracts, the Court agreed with the court below that the contracts allowed Cingular only to collect fees it “incurred” in collecting a debt. The way the parties structured their arrangement, neither Cingular nor AFNI “incurred” any collection fees. Finally, the Court addressed AFNI’s argument that it was entitled to the bona fide defense in the FDCPA. The Court identified a growing split in the circuits on the issue of whether the bona fide defense applies to mistakes of law. It did not express an opinion on that issue, however. Rather. it decided that AFNI did not maintain reasonable procedures to prevent the error, which is an element of the defense.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

KELLEY v. MED-1 SOLUTIONS  (November 25, 2008)

Brian Kelley received medical treatment at St. Vincent Carmel Hospital (“St. Vincent”). When Kelley failed to pay for the services, St. Vincent hired Med-1 Solutions, LLC (“Med-1”) to collect the amounts due. Although St. Vincent always owned the debt, it gave Med-1 the right to collect it. Med-1 sued Kelley in an Indiana small claims court. It attached documents to the small claims court form which indicated that the debt was owed to St. Vincent. Med-1 also attached Kelley’s financial responsibility form he had signed prior to receiving medical treatment. That form provided for payment of “reasonable attorney fees” if the debt was assigned to a collection agency. St. Vincent paid Med-1’s fees and costs and a percentage of the amount collected. Med-1’s in-house attorneys received a percentage of the attorney fees collected by Med-1. Med-1 obtained a judgment against Kelley for $892.09. Kelley and several others in a similar situation brought suit against Med-1, its owner, and its in-house attorneys. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), claiming that Med-1 was not entitled to attorney fees and that its claims that it was were false and deceptive. The district court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Williams affirmed. The issue before the Court was whether the case was controlled by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine, taken from two Supreme Court decisions, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, prohibits a lower federal court review of a decision of a state court. Plaintiffs attempted to avoid the application of Rooker-Feldman by characterizing their complaint as one attacking defendants’ representations and requests for attorneys fees, not the actual state court judgment awarding the fees. The Court did not accept the distinction. It concluded that if it found that defendants were not entitled to fees and therefore violated the FDCPA, it was also determining that the state court judgments were in error. The Court next addressed the “reasonable opportunity” exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiffs contended that they were unable to raise their FDCPA claims in the Indiana small claims venue. The Court disagreed. The plaintiffs could have transferred their case out of the small claims venue and litigated their FDCPA claims. The Court concluded that plaintiffs had a “reasonable opportunity” to litigate their claims and their complaint was properly dismissed. In addition, the Court questioned the continued viability of the “reasonable opportunity” exception since the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link