In Szczurek v. Professional Management, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s letter series violated the FDCPA when 5 different letters stated: “To avoid further contact from this office regarding your past due account, please send the balance due to our office and include the top portion of this letter with your payment” by falsely representing that the only way to stop further collection activity was to pay the balance. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the notice was accurate because “contact” was different from further “collection activity” that could be stopped for other reasons, such as a written cease and desist request. The court granted the motion, finding it was truthful that contact would stop if payment was received, and that the statement did not overshadow the validation rights which explained the consumer’s multiple options to respond to the letter.
In Clayton v. I.Q. Systems, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by making excessive calls and falsely representing the amount of the debt. Defendant moved for summary judgment on both claims, and the court granted the motion in part. The court entered judgment in defendant’s favor on the excessive call claim, finding that placing five calls over two months was insufficient to create a question of fact on whether the calls were made with an intent to harass or annoy, especially when the five calls were made on four different days, and the one day when there was two calls made involved brief calls. The court denied the motion on the false representation claim, finding there was a disputed fact about the amount of the debt and whether the amount of the debt was misrepresented by including an interest charge.► Back to News & Resources