A District Court judge in Wisconsin has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by including a time limit on a settlement offer and by using the phrase “balance due” in a collection letter.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Nagan v. Optio Solutions can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter included an itemization of the debt that looked like this:
Principal: $357.77 Fees: $235.00 Interest: $70.51 Balance Due: $663.28
As well, the letter offered to settle the debt for 50% of the balance that was owed, and gave the plaintiff 45 days to take advantage of the offer before it expired.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the phrase “balance due” violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA because it implied that the balance was increasing and that other charges could be accruing or added. As well, the plaintiff alleged that the time limit on the settlement offer violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA because the defendant had the authority to extend the offer beyond the 45 days and increase the amount of the discount.
The 45-day deadline does not rise to the level of an FDCPA violation because there was nothing in the letter to indicate that it was a one-time offer, noted Judge William Greisbach of the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
“… the letter represented an amount that Defendant was willing to settle Plaintiff’s account for at that time and included an invitation to Plaintiff to discuss the debt,” Judge Greisbach wrote. “Even if the letter might possibly be misleading or deceptive, Plaintiff was required to use extrinsic evidence to prove that the letter was actually confusing to the unsophisticated consumer.”
As for using the phrase “balance due,” Judge Greisbach noted it was “not false, deceptive, or misleading, as the only reasonable interpretation of the letter is that it states the itemized amount of the debt that was owed.”
