In Hageman v. Barton, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect a debt incurred for medical services by filing suit in the wrong creditor’s name and improperly adding interest charges. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were time barred. The court agreed, and in rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the limitation period should be equitably tolled, concluding that tolling was not an available remedy because the limitations period under the FDCPA is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling.
In Klemp v. Columbia Collection Service, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by misrepresenting the amount of the debt, and by adding interest that was not permitted by either state law or the underlying agreement with the creditor. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the balance was calculated correctly, and that any difference in the balance was the result of a bona fide error. The court granted the motion, finding that any discrepancy in the balance was the result of contradictory instructions plaintiff gave in applying the payments to different accounts, and that even if there was an error in stating the balance, it was the result of a bona fide error because defendant relied on the creditor to provide the balance information.
► Back to News & Resources