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

GULLEY v. MARKOFF & KRASNY (December 22, 2011)

In 2008, the City of Chicago imposed fines on Victor Gulley for Municipal Code violations. Gulley did not pay the fines because he no longer owned the real property associated with the violations. The City retained the law firm of Markoff & Krasny to collect the fines. Gulley brought suit against Markoff & Krasny pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act alleging a number of specific statutory violations. The law firm moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the fines were not "debts" under the Act. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) agreed. Gully appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Kanne, and Sykes affirmed. In affirming, the Court relied on: a) the language of the Act, which states that a "debt" must arise out of a transaction in which the subject of the transaction is "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes" b) the FTC (which is entitled not to Chevron deference but to respectful consideration in this context), which specifically excludes fines from the definition of "debts," and c) the consistent findings of district courts (no Court of Appeals has addressed the issue in a written opinion) excluding fines from FDCPA coverage.

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

CARTER v. AMC (May 13, 2011)

Jackson Square Properties owns the Riverstone Apartments in Bolingbrook Illinois. AMC, LLC managed the building on its behalf. AMC brought suit in state court to evict tenant Geaneice Carter. Although AMC prevailed at the trial court level, the appellate court reversed on the ground that AMC failed to give proper notice. One judge on the panel also concluded that AMC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Carter brought suit in federal court seeking damages for AMC's violation of the Act. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint on the ground that AMC was not a "debt collector" under the Act because it collected money owed to itself. Carter appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Sykes affirmed. The Court rejected Carter's position that AMC's violation of the Act was established in state court. Not only is the opinion of one judge on a three-judge panel not enough to resolve an issue, but even the one judge who expressed an opinion acknowledged that the resolution of that issue was not necessary for the court's decision. Collateral estoppel applies only when an issue is necessarily decided. The Court then pointed out an incorrect factual assumption made by both the state court and the district court. Both assumed that AMC was the lessor. In fact, it is clear that Jackson Square Properties is the lessor and AMC is its agent. AMC can therefore not escape liability under the Act as the lessor. But AMC can also escape liability if it is attempting to collect a debt it "obtained" from another and the debt was not in default when AMC obtained it. The Court noted that several courts of appeals have concluded that a mortgage loan servicer "obtains" the bank's debt. Although no court of appeals has considered the lessor situation, many district courts have and have concluded that a lease servicer "obtains" the debt when the lease is signed. The FTC staff has also concluded, albeit not in a regulation or advisory opinion, that a lease servicer "obtains" the debt when it becomes the agent. The agent is not a debt collector under the Act unless the rent was in arrears at that time. The Court therefore concluded that AMC obtained the debt when it acquired the authority to collect the rent. Since Carter was not in arrears at that time, AMC is not a debt collector under the Act.

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

O’ROURKE v. PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI (March 17, 2011)

Michael O'Rourke accumulated several thousand dollars of debt on his credit card but never paid it. In fact, he assumed the statute of limitations barred any payment obligations. So, when lawyers for Palisades Acquisition XVI, the debt's owner, sent him a collection notice, he ignored it. Palisades filed suit in state court and attached an exhibit that appeared to be, but was not, a credit card bill issued by Palisades to O'Rourke. Palisades eventually dismissed the state court case. O'Rourke brought suit against Palisades in federal court, alleging that the exhibit violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. His theory was that Palisades included the exhibit in order to mislead the state court judge into thinking that it was an accurate statement of the actual debt. Judge Norgle (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Palisades. O’Rourke appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Tinder (concurring in the result) affirmed. The Court stated that the Act prohibits both the false representation of a debt's "character, amount, or legal status" and the use of deceptive means to collect a debt. On its face, the Act does not say whether it includes statements made to a state court judge. The Court concluded that it did not. The Act is intended to protect consumers. Courts have extended its protection to third parties only when there is a special relationship (e.g., attorney, executrix) with a consumer. The Court held that the Act only applies to statements directed to consumers, and those with a special relationship to a consumer. Since a state court judge is an impartial decision-maker, the exhibit is not a covered communication.

Judge Tinder concurred in the result but disagreed with the Court’s rationale. He noted that the language of the Act is quite expansive, that its goal is to reduce abusive debt collection practices, and that state judges are powerful participants in the debt collection process. Why, then, should a false and misleading court submission not be a violation of the Act? Judge Tinder did not answer that question because he did not believe it necessary or prudent. Even assuming that the Act applies to communications to judges, O'Rourke loses. Because the exhibit was not misleading on its face, O'Rourke was required to submit extrinsic evidence. Although he submitted an expert report, the trial court excluded it. Without any extrinsic evidence, O'Rourke is unable to establish a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment for Palisades was proper.

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

TINSLEY v. INTEGRITY FINANCIAL PARTNERS (February 11, 2011)

Integrity Financial Partners (IFP) is a debt collector and was trying to collect a debt from Christopher Tinsley. Tinsley retained a lawyer and had the lawyer send a letter to IFP advising them that Tinsley refused to pay the debt and had no assets. The lawyer further requested that all collection efforts cease and advised IFP to "direct all future communications to our office." When IFP called the lawyer and requested payment, Kinsley filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Chief Judge Holderman (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Tinsley appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Hamilton affirmed. The Court began with § 1692(c)(c) of the Act. That section prohibits any communication by a debt collector with the “consumer" when it is advised that the consumer refuses to pay the debt or asks for no further communication on the debt. Tinsley argues that the prohibition on communicating with the consumer applies equally to communicating with the consumers attorney, his agent. Tinsley relies on the section of the Act that defines "communication" as conveying information directly or indirectly. Surely, he argues, communication with one’s lawyer is an indirect communication to the client. The Court noted that Tinsley's argument had been accepted by at least one district court and had apparently not been considered at the appellate court level. Although expressing some attraction to the argument at a superficial level, the Court reconsidered after it put the section in context. For example, subsections (a) and (b) of the Act are written in such a way that they would make no sense if a consumer and his lawyer were interchangeable. Furthermore, the Court noted that it is unlikely that Congress intended to prohibit all communication with a consumer’s lawyer. Finally, the Act’s definition of consumer does not include lawyer. Taking the Act as a whole, together with its purposes, the Court concluded that IFP's communication with Tinsley's lawyer was not prohibited by the Act.

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

GBUREK v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING (July 27, 2010)

Camille Gburek’s mortgage was serviced by Litton Loan Servicing. As of December 2007, Gburek was in default. She received two letters that month, one from Litton and one from Titanium Solutions on behalf of Litton. Neither letter demanded payment. The Litton letter offered to "discuss foreclosure alternatives" and "help preserve your homeownership." It requested financial information to help it consider its options. The Titanium Solutions letter also requested personal financial information and also offered to assist Gburek to find a way to avoid foreclosure. Gburek filed a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She alleges that each of the communications to her, as well as the communication between Litton and Titanium Solutions, violated the Act. Judge Shadur (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the communications were not made "in connection with the collection of any debt" as required by the Act. Gburek appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court noted that there are two threshold requirements for the FDCPA to apply. The first, that the defendant is a "debt collector," is conceded. The second, whether the communication at issue was "made in connection with the collection of any debt," is the issue on appeal. The Court looked to three of its prior decisions for guidance -- Bailey, Horkey, and Ruth. Bailey concluded that a communication was not "made in connection" because the debtor was not in default, any threats contained in the letter were prospective, and the communication contained no payment demand. The lack of payment demand was simply one factor in the analysis. Horkey concluded that the act did apply, even without an explicit demand for payment, when the reason for the communication was to induce the debtor to settle the debt. Finally, Ruth concluded that the Act applied to a privacy notice that was sent with a collection letter. The Court focused on the relationship between the parties and the fact that the communications were sent together. Thus, the Court emphasized that there is no bright line rule with respect to a demand requirement. Several factors are relevant in the analysis -- whether there is an explicit payment demand, the purpose and context of the communications, and the relationship between the parties. The Court applied the principles to each of the three communications at issue to determine whether the allegations were sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. With respect to each of the letters sent to Gburek, the Court found that their context and content brought them within the Act. Gburek was in default and both letters sought financial information and her cooperation in discussing alternatives to foreclosure. The communication between Litton and Titanium Solutions is likewise "made in connection." It is clear that Litton engaged Titanium Solutions for the sole purpose of assisting it in collecting the debt. The Court declined to address any of the substantive issues with respect to the alleged violations in that they were not adequately developed on appeal.

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

DEKOVEN v. PLAZA ASSOCIATES (March 17, 2010)

Plaza Associates is a well-known debt collection agency. It sent two collection letters to DeKoven stating that it had the authority to offer a lump-sum settlement but that the offer would only be "valid for a period of thirty-five (35) days." In a different letter to a plaintiff in a related suit, Plaza Associates included the DeKoven statement and also stated that a recipient who disputed the validity of the debt with "satisfactory proof" should provide that information to Plaza. The plaintiffs filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They complained about the "35 day" language and the "satisfactory proof" language. The former, they complain, might be construed by some as a final offer -- when in fact it is not. The latter, they complain, might be construed by some that a recipient must have "proof" to dispute the validity of the debt. Both plaintiffs retained the same survey expert. The expert conducted a survey but the judges in both cases considered it inadmissible. In both cases, the court below entered summary judgment for Plaza Associates. In both cases, the plaintiff appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Williams affirmed. The Court reviewed the circumstances of the survey. The expert surveyed 160 people in a shopping mall near Chicago. One half of the people were given the letter with both challenged clauses -- the others (the “control group”) were shown a letter with neither clause. The survey respondents were then asked a series of questions about the letters. The Court agreed with the district court in finding numerous flaws in the survey: the composition of the response group, the content of the original oral questions, and the content of the "control group" letter, among others. The Court noted that many Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases fail because of survey flaws. It suggested that district courts consider exercising their authority to use a court-appointed expert in FDCPA cases.

• 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

SCHLACHER v. LAW OFFICES OF PHILLIP J. ROTCHE AND ASSOCIATES (August 3, 2009)

Jean Schlacher got a root canal but fell behind in payments to her dentist. Her dentist obtained a judgment against her. Again, Schlacher fell behind on her payments on the judgment. The debt-collection law firm representing the dentist became quite abusive and threatening. Jean sought legal advice. Unfortunately, due to various lawyers' schedules and skill sets, she ended up with four different lawyers assisting her in her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") suit against the law firm. Fortunately, the suit was resolved in a short time, before any discovery, for a total of $6,500. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to agree on a fee award. The plaintiff petitioned for fees in excess of $12,000. The defendants objected to the attorneys’ hours and rates. The court awarded $6,500 in fees. Schlacher appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood and Williams affirmed. The Court first rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the district court abused its discretion in awarding an amount in fees equal to the amount of the judgment. The Court explained that the district court reduced the requested amount because of its view that the work of the four attorneys was duplicative and excessive. The fact that the court noticed a coincidence that the amount of the fee equaled the amount of the judgment is irrelevant. The Court also rejected the argument that the lower court's fee award was an abuse of discretion because of its lack of specific findings and calculations. When a fee award is substantial, the Court cautioned that a district court must be precise in its calculations. Here, when the amount is not substantial, less precision is required. The court questioned the hourly rates for several of the attorneys because of their lack of experience in FDCPA cases, noted the lack of complexity in the case, and believed that one attorney would have been sufficient. That explanation is sufficient to sustain the award.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link