In Santiago v. A.R. Resources, plaintiff alleged that defendant's collection letter was deceptive and confusing because it had a heading stating "Audit Notice" and stated "a recent audit of our client's records indicate an outstanding balance of..." Defendant moved for summary judgment because plaintiff had admitted that she did not read the letter, and because the language of the letter complied with the FDCPA. The court granted defendant's motion, finding that the letter, which needed to be read in its entirety, was clear that the audit referenced in the header related to the creditor's audit. The letter was also not deceptive because it nowhere asserted that plaintiff was subject to an audit, or was otherwise capable of two or more meanings.
In Ranwick v. Texas Gila, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone with a pre-recorded voice and without consent. Defendant submitted evidence that plaintiff had provided the cell number to the creditor when he contacted the creditor to discuss the fees he allegedly owed, and moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that when plaintiff confirmed his contact information including the phone number with the creditor, plaintiff provided prior express consent.► Back to News & Resources