Being accused of calling someone a “mother [expletive]” when attempting to collect on a debt and then not responding to a motion of summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs is a bold strategy, but it might have more to do with the defendant not having a lawyer who is representing it anymore, and that might be why a District Court judge in Texas granted the plaintiffs’ motion.
The Background: The plaintiffs orally agreed with a contractor on a price to remodel their bathroom. They plaintiffs allege that they paid the agreed-upon amount, but the contractor began calling, saying first they owed $3,000, then demanding $7,000 more. That total then escalated to $12,000, which the plaintiffs refused to pay. That led to the plaintiffs receiving a call from a representative of the defendant, whose collection strategy was less empathy and more obscenity, according to the complaint.
- The representative called one of the plaintiffs a “mother [expletive]” during a call after the plaintiff asked for proof of the debt. The representative began calling the plaintiffs daily, in some cases multiple times a day. Then, the plaintiffs began receiving text messages that threatened to notify members of their family about the purported debt. The representative called the former sister-in-law of one of the plaintiffs. The representative then left a voicemail for one of the plaintiffs saying he was going to show up at their house to conduct an “asset liability investigation” and that he would enter the home without permission.
- One of the plaintiffs claimed to have received a call for which it looked like his wife was calling him. But instead it was a representative of the defendant, who said, “Where are you at you mother [expletive]? I am coming after you!” The plaintiff, thinking his wife was in danger, rushed home to find his wife safe.
- The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act.
The Ruling: The plaintiffs filed the motion for summary judgment against the collection operation, and the collection operation did not respond to the motion. That might be because the attorney representing the collection operation withdrew from the case more than a year ago and the collector has not hired a replacement.
- The lack of response alone was enough for Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to grant the plaintiffs’ motion.
- While the defendant’s website claims the company is a commercial debt collector, the subject nature of the debt and the evidence shows that the defendant is subject to the FDCPA, Judge Mazzant ruled.
