A Kaulkin Ginsberg Publication
Ontario
03/21/2010

Court Rules Against Debt Collector in Cell Phone Collection Case

December 9, 2008
 

An appeals court ruling Monday found that a debt buyer does not have the right to add collection fees to an account if they are not authorized by the original contract.

Digg!
What's this?
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that debt collection agency Afni, Inc. must pay damages to a class of 7,000 Cingular Wireless customers for imposing collection fees that were not approved by contract.

The case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had been filed in 2005 and was granted class action status by U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Callahan, Jr. in Milwaukee. Callahan ruled last year that Bloomington, Ill.-based Afni’s collection charges were not allowed because the company owned the debt. He awarded the plaintiff class more than $200,000 in damages and allowed Afni to appeal.

On Monday, the appellate court upheld Callahan’s ruling, saying that Afni’s charges amounted to 15 percent of the total owed. The court said that the amount was not allowed under the consumers’ cell phone contracts and that the fees were a violation of Wisconsin law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The class can petition the court for additional damages to cover the cost of the appeal.

Afni was not acting as a third party collector on the debt, according to the original Callahan ruling. It had purchased the accounts directly from Cingular. Under Wisconsin law, only third party collectors are allowed to add collection fees. Since the 15 percent fees Afni charged were not spelled out in the original contracts, they were not authorized.

"We do strive for excellent customer service for our clients. In this particular case, it was a technical issue that was being litigated," said Debra Ciskey, Afni's director of compliance. "We interpreted the contract to allow us to add collection fees. The court looked at the specific language of the contract and interpreted it differently."

Get Hired - jobsInsideARM.comHiring? Post a job - jobsInsideARM.com

Comments

Comment from Spud on December 9, 2008 at 11:00PM EST

hahahahahaha!!! This is why people need to read AND comprehend what "Due Dilligence" is before they go playing god. Lawsuit is rightfully deserved!!

Comment from Anonymous on December 9, 2008 at 1:56AM EST

Duh....You can't add additional interest on top of interest. If it allowed it in the contract yes. If it's not in the contract you can't add your own. "We interpreted it differently". What Jimmy *ucks

Comment from Derek on December 19, 2008 at 11:27AM EST

"We interpreted the contract to allow us to add collection fees. The court looked at the specific language of the contract and interpreted it differently."

What an excuse.

Care to Comment?

(Please read our comments policy first.)

From:
Show my identity with comment

Leave this field empty
Interested in more stories like this?
Tell us what topics you're interested in and we'll keep you posted. Enter your email address below.
EPP
Interactive Data
Merlin
Interactive Data
  • DCM Services
  • Columbia Ultimate
  • Tracers
  • DAKCS
  • Interactive Data

Log In

Already registered? Log in here.





Forgot your password?

Register for FREE with insideARM

Create an account with insideARM and get access to our FREE newsletters and industry reports.










 

Check all | Uncheck all

Daily news and analysis
* Recommended *
Credit cards
Healthcare
Government/Municipal
Student loans
Mortgage
Auto finance
Collection agency operations
Collection technology
Debt purchasing
Recovery management
Hiring/Staffing
Job opportunities
Leave this field empty
 

You are already registered!

The email address you've entered is already in our database, meaning you've previously registered on insideARM.com.

All you have to do is log in using the form on the left.