Desantis v. Computer Credit Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,Docket No. 00-9574 |
| Parties | (2nd Cir. 2001) MICHAEL DESANTIS, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JOHN B. DESANTIS, SR.,, v. COMPUTER CREDIT, INC., DEFENDANT - APPELLEE |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Adam J. Fishbein, Uniondale, N.Y., for the appellant.
Robert L. Dougherty, Garden City, N.Y., for the appellee.
Before: Leval and Parker, Circuit Judges, and Cedarbaum, District Judge.*
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Jacob Mishler, Senior District Judge), dismissing claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. ("the Act"), for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. We vacate and remand.
Plaintiff Michael D. DeSantis brought this suit on behalf of John B. DeSantis, Sr., against Computer Credit, Inc., a debt collection agency. (JA 6.) At some point prior to April 27, 2000, John B. DeSantis, Sr., apparently incurred a debt of $319.50 to Dr. Jeffrey A. Stahl. Dr. Stahl assigned the debt for collection purposes to Computer Credit, which is a "debt collector" within the meaning of the Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). (JA 7.)
On April 27, 2000, Computer Credit sent a letter to John DeSantis. That letter is now the subject of this action. The letter reads:
This notice will serve to inform you that your overdue balance with Dr. Jeffrey A. Stahl has been referred to Computer Credit, Inc., a debt collector. [T]he doctor insists on payment or a valid reason for your failure to make payment. The law prohibits us from collecting any amount greater than the obligation stated above. Unless you notify us to the contrary, we will assume the amount due is correct. This communication is sent to you in an attempt to collect this debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. In the absence of a valid reason for your failure to make payment, pay the above debt or contact the doctor to settle this matter. Payment can be sent directly to the doctor. (emphases added) (JA 23.)
In addition, the bottom of the front page of the letter states: "PLEASE SEE IMPORTANT NOTICE ON BACK." The parties did not provide the district court with a copy of the reverse side of the April 27 letter. We will assume that the reverse side of the letter contains standard form language setting forth a debt validation notice satisfying the terms of the Act. (JA 7.)
The complaint alleges that the letter violated the terms of the Act, notwithstanding the debt validation notice on the reverse side of the letter, by contradicting or confusing the letter's statutorily required message. The complaint focuses on the letter's second and penultimate sentences (those reproduced in italics above).
Defendant moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The district court granted defendant's motion, finding that the defendant's letter did not contradict or overshadow the message required by the Act. (JA 10-12.) This appeal followed.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act establishes certain rights for consumers whose debts are placed in the hands of professional debt collectors for collection, and requires that such debt collectors advise the consumers whose debts they seek to collect of specified rights. In relevant part, the Act provides that, within five days of a debt collector's initial communication with the consumer, the debt collector must
send the consumer a written notice containing... a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within [thirty days after receipt of the notice] that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.
15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4). The Act further provides that
[i]f the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty day period... that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed... the debt collector shall cease collection... until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt... and a copy of such verification... is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.
15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
A debt collector violates the Act if it fails to convey the information required by the Act. Even if a debt collector conveys the required information, the collector nonetheless violates the Act if it conveys that information in a confusing or contradictory fashion so as to cloud the required message with uncertainty. Thus, a debt collector violates the Act if its communication is "reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading" of the required message. Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir. 1998).
In determining whether a debt collector violates the Act, we apply "an objective standard, measured by how the `least...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vincent v. Money Store
...rights for consumers whose debts are placed in the hands of professional debt collectors for collection.” DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159, 161 (2d Cir.2001). As is relevant here, section 1692e of the FDCPA provides generally that “[a] debt collector may not use any false, de......
-
Betskoff v. Enter. Rent a Car Co. of Baltimore, Civil Action No. ELH-11-2333
..."rights for consumers whose debts are placed in the hands of professional debt collectors for collection." DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159, 161 (2d Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). But, it does not "apply to creditors collecting debts in their own names and whose primary busines......
-
Guerrero ex rel. Situated v. GC Servs. Ltd.
...are placed in the hands of professional debt collectors for collection.'" Vincent, 736 F.3d at 96 (quoting DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159, 161 (2d Cir. 2001)); see Polanco v. NCO Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 132 F. Supp. 3d 567, 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). In order for consumersto vindi......
-
Jackson v. Abendroth & Russell, P.C.
...‘in a confusing or contradictory fashion so as to cloud the required message with uncertainty.’ " (quoting DeSantis v. Comput. Credit, Inc. , 269 F.3d 159, 161 (2d Cir.2001) )).Jackson contends A&R violated these disclosure requirements in two ways. First, Jackson points to the dates on the......
-
Lender and Servicer Defenses to FDCPA Claims
...that such debt collectors advise the consumers whose debts they seek to collect of specified rights.” DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159, 161 (2d Cir. 2001). The statute provides that a debt collector “may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass,......
-
Identifying Some Trouble Spots in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:a Framework for Improvement
...a conflict. See Renick v. Dun and Bradstreet Receivable Mgmt. Servs., 290 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2002); DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001); Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997); Russell v. Equifax A.R.S. 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996). 14.The FDCPA provides: "......
-
The Role of Validation and Communication in the Debt Collection Process
...right to dispute the debt did not depend on whether the consumer had a valid reason for non-payment. DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F. 3d 159, 162 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Mendez v. M.R.S. Assocs., 2005 WL 1564977, at *5 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2005) (stating that letter created ambigui......