On June 3, 2019, a judge in the District of New Jersey found that Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (1991), the Third Circuit decision that spawned the high volume of lawsuits faced by debt collectors today, does not require disputes to be in writing.
In Smallwood v. Alltran Fin. LP, No. 19-cv-1394 (D.N.J. June 3, 2019), defendant sent a collection letter to the plaintiff. The letter included a validation notice that tracked the statutory language of section 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Plaintiff sued, arguing that the validation notice's use of the word "if" in the second sentence does not inform the consumer that a 1692g dispute must be in writing as allegedly required by Graziano.
The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. The judge found that the defendant included everything required by the statute in its validation notice, going so far as to include the following comparison chart between 1692g’s requirements and the language of the letter:
View this content by subscribing
Please register to unlock this content
I already have an account. Log in
