In Douglass v. Convergent, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by placing plaintiff's account number on the face of the debt collector's envelope. The district court entered summary judgment in defendant's favor, applying a benign language exception because the account number did not indicate it was a debt collection letter or was otherwise intended to embarrass or humiliate the consumer. Plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court reversed, finding that the disclosure of the account number was prohibited even though it was only visible through an envelope window, and that the inclusion of the account number through the envelope was not benign.
In McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect past due HOA fees and initiating foreclosure proceedings. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by expiration of the FDCPA's one year statute of limitation period. Plaintiff responded by arguing that the alleged violations were ongoing, and therefore, the limitation period was tolled. The court denied the motion, concluding that plaintiff's allegations that the unlawful conduct was a series of activities constituting a continuing practice was sufficient to create a factual dispute on whether the limitation period was tolled.
In Coleman v. Northland Group, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending a series of collection letters that failed to disclose that interest was accruing on her debt. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege any violation of the FDCPA. The court agreed, and granted the motion because the complaint did not specify the section of the FDCPA that was violated, and because there was no indication that any misrepresentation was material as it did would not affected her ability to respond to the letters.
► Back to News & Resources
