Degroot v. Client Services Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-debt collector’s motion to dismiss plaintiff-debtor’s action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that defendant’s dunning letter, which told plaintiff that plaintiff would not owe interest or fees on debt “through course of [defendant’s] collection efforts concerning your account” was misleading because: (1) subsequent letter contained itemized summary of plaintiff’s current balance, which listed “0.00” as interest charge; and (2) plaintiff contended that letter implied that creditor would begin to add interest if plaintiff failed to resolve debt with defendant. Itemization of debt is record of what has already happened, such that unsophisticated consumer would construe letter as only status of debt as of date of letter. As such, plaintiff could only speculate as to whether debt would accrue interest in future, and that instant letter, which related only to current status of debt and was silent as to future treatment, did not run afoul of FDCPA.