A federal court in Tennessee recently dismissed a case after ruling that a brief conversation between a debt collector law firm and a third party during which the collector identified itself as the caller was not a "communication" under the FDCPA.
In Yount v. Midland Funding, thelaw firm representative, when talking to the plaintiff's employer, confirmed that the rep was calling from a law firm; noted the call was on a "quality recorded line"; and provided a call-back number after the plaintiff's work colleague asked to take a message.
Applying a refreshingly rare, common sense analysis, the court concluded the call was not a "communication" under the FDCPA because "the caller [did] nothing to reveal, either directly or indirectly, the existence of the debt" and, instead, "merely reveal[ed] generic information." The judge also rejected plaintiff's argument that a call from a law firm is presumed to pertain to debt collection; law firms provide many services unrelated to debt collection.
Critically, the court distinguished this case from other cases where courts found similar conversations were communications under the FDCPA. The conversation here did not indirectly reveal the existence of a debt because the collector did not use language that conveyed any urgency, e.g., the collector did not state the call regarded a "time sensitive," "important," or "personal business matter" and did not "demand" to be called back "as soon as possible." Unfortunately though, an opportunity to receive further relief from Foti was lost when the court elected not to address any of the post-Foti cases.
Though providing some hope for sanity in the future, the ruling probably does little to help what is the widely accepted the law of the land - leaving any messages with third parties is fraught with risk, and Foti messages are still required.
► Back to News & Resources
