A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment after it was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the plaintiff alleged the defendant did not supply the proper paperwork when it filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Butler v. Portfolio Recovery Associates can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff defaulted on a credit card account and subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection, listing the lender as a creditor on her bankruptcy petition. The creditor sold the account to the defendant and the defendant filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff. The defendant attached the Bill of Sale from its purchase of the portfolio from the creditor. The defendant is under a Consent Order from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and required to possess original account-level documentation before initiating a suit against a consumer.
In her suit against the defendant, the plaintiff alleged the Bill of Sale provided by the defendant did not meet the requirements of state law in Maryland or the terms of the consent order.
Ultimately, Judge Julie R. Rubin of the District Court for the District of Maryland sided with the defendant. State law in Maryland requires a collector or debt buyer introduce the following evidence when filing collection lawsuits: A certified or other properly authenticated copy of the bill of sale or other document that transferred ownership of the debt to each successive owner, including the debt buyer or collector, with each bill of sale or other document that transferred ownership containing specific reference to the debt. According to the plaintiff, this meant the specific Bill of Sale for her debt to the defendant, not a generic receipt for the whole portfolio.
Judge Rubin decided the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute was “too narrow” and failed “to consider neighboring language in the statute and consent order.”
