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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT