Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-debt collectors’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs' action alleging that defendants violated FDCPA by making misleading and deceptive statement in allegation in state-court debt collection complaints seeking to collect on plaintiffs' student loans. Ct. agreed with plaintiffs that allegation in state-court complaints that “debt referenced in this suit will be assumed to be valid and correct if not disputed in whole or in part within 30 days from date hereof” was misleading/deceptive as matter of law because, for each plaintiff, time period for “disputing debt” set forth in complaint was shorter than time period provided by law to answer said complaint. Ct. further noted that because defendants used same 30-period to dispute debt in their prior demand letter, unsophisticated consumer might believe that he must dispute debt through procedures set forth in demand letter. Ct. further found that representations made in state-court proceedings were covered under section 1692e of FDCPA.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act