ILNews

Agency collecting credit card debt not a creditor, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A debtor’s counterclaim that a collection agency violated the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code by not obtaining a license was rejected by the Indiana Court of Appeals on the grounds that although the agency was trying to recover a debt, it was not a creditor.

Asset Acceptance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan, tried to recover $6,594.26 from Nathan Wertz, who had defaulted on his credit card from Chase Bank/First USA/Chase.

Wertz claimed Asset Acceptance could not collect on payments for consumer loans debts because it is not licensed under the IUCCC. Accordingly, Wertz argued Asset Acceptance’s collection efforts violated both the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed in Nathan Wertz v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 71A03-1305-CC-175. The COA affirmed the trial court’s grant of the agency’s Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Wertz’s counterclaim.

Wertz raised the question on appeal of whether Asset Acceptance “regularly engage(d) in Indiana” in taking assignments of consumer loans or in the collection of payments from debtors arising from consumer loans as described in Indiana Code 24-4.5-3-502. If so, then it was required to have a license from the IUCCC.

Citing Sheetz v. PYOD LLC, 3:12-cv-811-JD-CAN, 2013 WL 5436943 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2013), the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the plain language of the IUCCC extends the licensure requirement to entities not physically located in Indiana.

“…Section 3-502(3), which is the licensure requirement relevant here, does not require ‘creditors’ to obtain a license and instead focuses on the actions undertaken by the entity in question,” Judge Edward Najam wrote for the court. “These actions, in particular that of taking an assignment or collecting on a debt, may or may not be the actions of a creditor.”

 

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT