Debt Collector Wins Dismissal of FDCPA Suit Regarding Settlement Offers and Credit Reporting

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

A federal district judge in California late last month dismissed a lawsuit brought against an ARM firm alleging violations under a number of statutes for its promise to mark an account as “paid in full” on a consumer’s credit report even though the consumer was paying only an amount agreed to in a settlement offer.

The case, Kielty et al v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., sought class action status. It alleged that Midland violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) by positioning itself as a credit repair organization, using language like “We can help you get back on track…” in collection letters. The plaintiffs contend that Midland offered a settlement for less than the full amount owed, while promising to mark the accounts as paid in full on their credit reports.

Since this behavior is not allowed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the suit contends, the promises were also violations of the FDCPA and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act), as they were deceptive or misleading.

Between April 13, 2012 and January 22, 2014, Midland sent letters and brochures to the plaintiffs that contained language they claim represented that Midland could perform credit repair services for them. These statements included the following:

Your past due balance…with FIRST CREDIT BANK OF  DELAWARE is being reported to the credit reporting bureaus and  remains a negative item on your credit report…We can help you get back on track…Once you make a payment, interest will stop being applied to your account[,] [y]our credit report will be updated with the payments you make[,] [and] [t]he account will appear on your credit report as Paid in Full after you’ve completed your payments[.]

and

Special offers are now available to help you resolve your unpaid Cit Bank account…[w]e can help you get back on track… [W]e will not sue you for repayment of this obligation. This account may still be reported on your credit report as unpaid, and repaying the obligation may help toward improving your credit.

Because of that language, the plaintiffs contend that Midland violated the CROA because it did not include the appropriate disclosures under that law.

Midland moved to dismiss all of the claims on the grounds that it is not a credit repair organization and thus does not fall within the mandates of the CROA. Since it did not claim to do something it could not do, the company said that it also did not violate the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act.

Judge Cynthia Bashant, in the Southern District of California, wrote that the defendant did not, in fact, fall under the purview of the CROA becase, “Midland does not represent that its services can improve or assist in improving a consumer’s credit record, history, or rating. Midland, as a debt collector, is simply seeking the repayment of debts owed and in doing so encourages the repayment of debts owed to it and acknowledges the benefits of repayment. Seeking the repayment of a debt and utilizing ‘the potential of a lower credit score as motivation to encourage [a person] to pay the debt’ does not make a person a credit repair organization.”

Judge Bashant also noted that that there is no allegation in the complaint that Midland offered services or advice for any additional fee. She granted Midland’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, should the plaintiffs so choose.

As for the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims, Bashant noted that those were predicated on Midland promising something it could not deliver, notably, marking an account as Paid in Full on a credit report when, in fact, a lesser amount was paid. This would make the statements misleading and a violation of both statutes, since the FCRA forbids furnishing inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency.

Midland argued that it could report the debt as “Paid in Full,” regardless of whether the consumers paid a lesser amount by agreement. Bashant concurred, writing, “The Court agrees that neither the FDCPA nor the FCRA explicitly bar a debt collector from reporting a ‘settled’ debt as having been fully satisfied.”

Judge Bashant likewise dismissed the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims, with leave to amend. She noted that if Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so no later than March 2, 2015.

 

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Collection Laws and Regulations, Debt Buying, Debt Collection, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), FDCPA, Featured Post .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar Jennifer Bellworthy says:

    “Midland moved to dismiss all of the claims on the grounds that it is not a credit repair organization and thus does not fall within the mandates of the CROA.”

    CROA is designed to protect consumers from dishonest and deceptive activity. Midland wasn’t saying it wasn’t dishonest or deceptive, it was saying that CROA doesn’t apply to Midland, so when midland is dishonest and deceptive, it shouldn’t be sued under CROA.

    God forbid Midland would have to follow these “mandates” and be honest and straight forward.

  • avatar julie-repa says:

    Midland didn’t do anything wrong, everything they stated is true. Paying your past due bills does help your credit score, there is nothing deceptive about that statement.

  • avatar Jennifer Bellworthy says:

    If there was nothing deceptive, Midland would have defended by saying they did nothing deceptive. Instead they defended by saying, in effect, “it is OK for us to act deceptively because CROA does not apply to us.”

Leave a Reply