In Wells v. Healthcare Financial Services, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by continuing to call his place of employment after plaintiff had told defendant that he was not allowed to received personal calls at work. After the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, defendant moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court had misunderstood the evidence as all calls that were made after plaintiff told defendant that he could not receive calls at work were either initiated by plaintiff, or were not answered. The court granted the motion and entered judgment in defendant’s favor, finding that an unanswered call conveys no information concerning a debt, and therefore the unanswered calls were not communications under or in violation of the FDCPA.
► Back to News & Resources
