In a case that was defended by Rick Perr of Kaufman Dolowich and Voluck, a District Court judge in New York has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit after it was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by including references to interest and fees in a collection letter, even though the amounts were zero and neither was accruing.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Sharon v. CAC Financial Corp. can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from a collection agency in regard to an unpaid credit card debt. The letter sought to collect a balance of $1,751. Four months later, the plaintiff received another collection letter — this time from the defendant, a different collection agency. The defendant sent the plaintiff two letters, six weeks apart from one another. Each letter sought to collect the same amount — $2,018.79 and mentioned that the “POST C/O INTEREST” and “POST C/O FEES” were zero.
The plaintiff filed the class-action lawsuit, alleging the defendant violated Sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA because the letters did not say whether the debt was accruing interest or fees or whether paying the balance would satisfy the debt.
Relying on Taylor v. Financial Recovery Services, Judge Ann Donnelly of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, agreed that failing to disclose that a debt is static is not misleading within the meaning of Section 1692e of the FDCPA.
The plaintiff tried to use the ruling in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates to her advantage, but the cases are distinguishable because the debt in that case was still accruing interest.
“The evidence, including the defendant’s affidavits and the content of the letters it sent to the plaintiff, demonstrate that the outstanding debt was static during the period the defendant was trying to collect on the debt,” Judge Donnelly wrote. “Thus, all the plaintiff had to do was pay $2,018.79 to settle the debt. Nothing in the record supports the plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary.”
