A District Court judge in New York has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case but denied a motion for attorney’s fees, after the defendant sent two identical collection letters in close succession to one another, which the plaintiff claimed overshadowed the validation notice.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Kurzdorfer v. Constar Financial Services can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant that was dated April 16, 2019. She received an identical letter that was dated April 22, 2019. Both letters included the following validation notice:
[u]nless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
If payment in full is received in our office, all collection activity will cease.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging she did not know when the 30-day validation period ended because it appeared as though the second letter extended the validation window.
Judge David Larimer of the District Court for the Western District of New York said that the second letter did in fact extend the validation window for the plaintiff to dispute the debt, and that is not a bad thing.
“Constar instead merely extended Kurzdorfer’s time to dispute the validity of her debt beyond the initially noticed validation period, which it was permitted to do,” Judge Larimer wrote in granting the motion to dismiss. “This being the only basis for her claims, Kurzdorfer has thus failed to sufficiently state a claim under the FDCPA and her complaint must be dismissed.”
Judge Larimer dismissed the motion for attorney’s fees, ruling the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith when she filed the lawsuit.
