Preston v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-debtor’s action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) alleging that words “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” on outside of envelope of defendant’s dunning letter violated section 1692f(8)’s prohibition against use of any language or symbol other than debt collector’s name and address on envelope of dunning letter. While Dist. Ct. believed that there was benign-language exception to limitations set forth in section 1692f(8), Ct. of Appeals found that clear language of section 1692f(8) precluded defendant from putting anything on envelope other than its name or address, as long as name did not indicate that defendant was in debt collection business. However, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s claim that combination of language in letter regarding discounted offers, statement that defendant was not obligated to renew discounted offers and “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” language on envelope constituted false representation of character and legal status of plaintiff’s debt in violation of sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10) of FDCPA. Ct. of Appeals noted that defendant’s use of safe harbor language: “We are not obligated to renew any offers provided” cured any misperception that unsophisticated consumer might have formed concerning meaning of settlement offers or status of his debt.