Fed Ct. Says Consumer Protection Laws Extend to Communications to a Debtor’s Attorney

US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decision (March 25, 2016).

This case involved a dispute over the interpretation of two sections of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The sections in question pertained to a requirement that a debt collector provide notice to a consumer which includes a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector “in writing” within 30 days that the debt is disputed, the debt collector will obtain and provide verification of the debt and/or a copy of a judgment against the consumer. The collector had sent a debt collection letter to the attorney for the consumer (not the consumer directly) which notified the consumer of their right to dispute the validity of the debt but the letter did not contain any statement that the consumer’s responsive notice of dispute had to be contained in a writing (emphasis added). The consumer contended that the omission violated the FDCPA and that by omitting the “in writing” requirement the debt collector was using a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. The lower district court found that the plaintiff’s action did not state a valid claim and dismissed the case. The plaintiff then filed an appeal.

The appellate court noted that the case involved the following issue that had not previously been addressed in the Eleventh Circuit: whether a debt collection letter that is sent to a consumer’s attorney, and not directly to the consumer, constitutes a communication with a consumer that is governed by the FDCPA. The appellate court reversed the lower district court’s judgment dismissing the case after finding that, because the FDCPA defines a “communication” as “the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium” (emphasis added), sending a letter to a consumer’s attorney (as opposed to the consumer directly ) is an “indirect” communication with the consumer that is governed by the FDCPA. Because the debt collector’s letter to the consumer’s attorney omitted the material required term that the debtor’s notification of a dispute of the obligation had to be in writing, there was a misstatement of the law surrounding debt-verification requests which gave rise to a valid claim by the consumer under the FDCPA.

See case decision: Connie_Bishop_v._Ross_Earle_