ILNews

7th Circuit splits over Marion County Small Claims debt collection suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Are Marion County Township courts “judicial districts” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, thus allowing a man to sue a debt collector for bringing an action in an inconvenient township court? Depends on who you ask on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, as the majority ruled in favor of the debt collector Thursday.

Judges Joel Flaum, Ann Claire Williams and Richard Posner decided Mark Suesz, individually and on behalf of a class v. Med-1 Solutions LLC, 13-1821. Med-1 Solutions bought the medical debt of Hendricks County resident Mark Suesz that stemmed from treatment in Lawrence Township in Marion County. The company filed a collection action in Marion County Small Claims Court in Pike Township, on the other side of Marion County. Suesz then filed this lawsuit, seeking damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which requires debt collectors to bring suit in the judicial district where the contract was signed or where the consumer resides.

U.S. Judge William Lawrence tossed Suesz’s lawsuit in March after finding the small claims courts were not judicial districts for the purposes of the Act.  Flaum and Williams agreed, relying on Newsom v. Friedman, 76 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 1996). Using a similar approach as in Newsom, the majority looked at the makeup of courts in Indiana and what should be considered judicial districts here.

“[T]he township courts fall short of constituting freestanding judicial districts for several reasons. First, they fall short under our definition, because the limitations on their authority are not coterminous with township boundaries. We find it especially significant that the statute permits debt collectors to file actions anywhere in the county, rather than limiting the township courts’ reach to township borders. This filing flexibility suggests that the proper judicial district is Marion County as a whole, rather than the individual townships,” Flaum wrote.

“It is also noteworthy that the Marion County Superior Court lacks a small claims docket—which every other superior court in Indiana has. This suggests that the township courts, superior court, and circuit court are meant to function as a symbiotic whole, with the township courts obviating the need for a superior court small claims docket.”

Posner wrote a 10-page dissent, believing Newsom is unsound and needs to be overruled. He pointed out that the majority interpreted the relevant portion of the Act in a vacuum instead of against the background of debt collectors seeking to file actions in the courts that are inconvenient to debtors or where judges are unsympathetic to debtors.

“What’s true is that a debt collector is free to choose a court system (federal, county, city, or township, depending on jurisdictional requirements) in which to file. But once it makes its choice, section 1692i requires it to pick the most convenient court within the system’s territorial limits. That would be Lawrence Township court in this case,” Posner wrote.
 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT