ILNews

7th Circuit rules on debtor issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision today addressing issues that have frequently arisen under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which have caused some splits at the Circuit level. In its opinion, the court combined two cases from Indiana and two from Illinois that dealt with similar issues.

The four cases in the opinion include Tammy A. Evory, et al. v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, et al., 06-2130 to 2132, 06-2134, and 06-2157, and Kevin I. Captain v. ARS National Services, Inc., 06-3129 from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge David Hamilton presided over both cases. The Illinois cases are Kelly and Karla Lauer v. Mason, Silver, Wenk & Mishkin, LLC, et al., 06-2271 and Philip Jackson, et al. v. National Action Financial Services Inc., et al., 06-3162, 06-3327-06-3439, and 06-3446.

In the opinion authored by Circuit Judge Richard Posner, the court determined there are three overlapping groups of issues to be addressed: the application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, to lawyers; the proper treatment under the act of settlement offers; and the role of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure12(c) in deciding claims of violations of section 1692e.

The 7th Circuit concluded that any written notice sent to the attorney of a consumer being contacted by a debt collector must contain the same information required by the act that would be sent to the consumer directly. It would be odd if a consumer with an attorney would be excused from receiving information to which he or she is entitled under the statute, wrote Judge Posner.

In the opinion, the judges decided that a representation by a debt collector that would not deceive a competent attorney, even if he or she is not a specialist in consumer debt law, would not be actionable under the act; however misleading or misrepresentation toward an attorney with information a lawyer may not be able to determine, such as the balance of the consumer's debt, would be actionable.

In terms of proper treatment under the act of settlement offers, the 7th Circuit wrote the settlement offers should include language such as "We are not obligated to renew this offer," so even unsophisticated consumers can understand that the debt collector may or may not present a similar offer again. Consumers often interpret offers such as "act now and receive 30 percent off ... if you pay by March 31st" or "we would like to offer you a unique opportunity to satisfy your outstanding debt" as one-time only offers and may not have any further opportunity to settle their debt for less than the full amount if they do not take the offer at that time. By using terms such as "not obligated," the debt collector can let the consumer know the company may or may not extend this offer again.

The 7th Circuit reversed and remanded Evory, Captain, and Lauer for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. In Captain, the 7th Circuit ruled that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim because settlement-offer charges are lawful under the act and the challenge to the lawfulness of the $15 a day representation was made to a lawyer.

In Evory, which is a pure settlement-offer case with no communication with attorneys, the 7th Circuit ruled the dismissal of the complaint was an error.

In Lauer, the 7th Circuit ruled the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint on grounds that the communications with a consumer's attorney are beyond the reach of the act was an error.

The court affirmed Jackson.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT