Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant-car repossession company violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by demanding that plaintiff pay $100 to retrieve her personal property that had been left in car that defendant had repossessed after plaintiff had failed to make payments on said car. While plaintiff argued that said demand constituted impermissible demand for payment on debt, plaintiff failed to support her claim that defendant had made such a demand on her, and defendant otherwise produced documentation indicating that creditor would make such payment to defendant as administrative expense. Moreover, plaintiff failed to show that any demand for payment of instant $100 handling fee was made on behalf of creditor.