Steffek v. Client Services, Inc.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-debtor’s action, alleging that defendant violated section 1692g(a)(2) of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to clearly identify current holder of debt, where defendant’s dunning letter merely listed name of bank and account number and further stated: “The above account has been placed with our organization for collections.” While Dist. Ct. granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on defendant’s representation in instant lawsuit that said bank was actual current creditor, actual identify of current creditor did not control result of instant lawsuit. Moreover, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment, where language in letter, although providing account number, said nothing about who currently owned debt at time of issuance of letter. Fact that defendant identified itself in letter as debt collector did not require different result, even though bank mentioned in letter was only creditor mentioned in letter.