Agency Gets Overshadowing Suit Dismissed

A federal judge in the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit that alleged it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by overshadowing the 30-day dispute notification window in a collection letter.

A copy of the ruling in LaMarr v. Computer Credit Inc. can be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiff received a collection letter related to an unpaid medical debt. The letter included the following text:

Your overdue balance with your creditor Aspen Dental has been referred to Computer Credit, Inc. for collection. Our records indicate that this debt is your responsibility. This letter will serve to inform you that your account remains unpaid and we expect resolution of your obligation to the business office. Computer Credit, Inc. is a debt collector and a member of ACA International, the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals.

This communication is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Unless you notify our office that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will assume that the debt is valid and expect it to be paid. Pay the amount due to prevent further collection activity by Computer Credit, Inc. We appreciate your attention to this matter.

The plaintiff claimed the letter demanded immediate payment by saying “Your overdue balance with your creditor Aspen Dental has been referred to Computer Credit, Inc. for collection. Our records indicate that this debt is your responsibility. This letter will serve to inform you that your account remains unpaid and we expect resolution of your obligation to the business office;” and “Pay the amount due to prevent further collection activity by Computer Credit, Inc.”

A self-addresses stamped envelope and detachable payment coupon accompanied the collection letter, which also made it appear as though the payment was due immediately, the plaintiff argued.

Under the FDCPA, collection agencies must give individuals 30 days to dispute a debt and may not do anything during that 30 days that makes it appear as though the debt must be repaid before the 30-day period is expired.

Like other courts that have ruled in favor of defendants, this judge was not buying the argument that the letter overshadowed the dispute window.

“In this case, the dunning letter is clear and nothing within it could confuse the most unsophisticated of plaintiffs,” wrote Judge Theresa Springmann. “The two sentences the Plaintiff cites as overshadowing her rights under the FDCPA are straightforward, informative statements. These statements contain no dates that obfuscate the Plaintiff’s rights under the FDCPA, nor anything else that would cause misinformation. The dunning letter states that the debt is owed and that payment would prevent Computer Credit from engaging in further collection activity. The letter did not direct the Plaintiff to take any action to pay the debt within the 30-day validation period. The letter, at most, contains puffery, but still contains nothing contrary or contradictory to the thirty-day validation period pursuant to the FDCPA. Nothing within this correspondence could be construed as overshadowing an unsophisticated reader’s rights under the FDCPA.”