Howard v. Patenaude & Felix APC

• Decision Date: 30 September 2022
• Docket Number: 21-CV-00686-LK
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: DEBRA HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX APC, Defendant.

DEBRA HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX APC, Defendant.

No. 21-CV-00686-LK

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

September 30, 2022

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Lauren King, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Debra Howard's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 17, and Defendant Patenaude & Felix APC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 20. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Howard's motion and denies Patenaude & Felix's cross-motion. Howard has reserved the issue of damages for trial.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a debt collection case, and the material facts are undisputed. Plaintiff Debra Howard accrued a balance on her Target credit card several years ago. Dkt. No. 17-2 at 1. When she failed to make monthly payments, Howard was sent to collections. Target hired Patenaude & Felix (“P&F”) to collect the debt. Dkt. No. 29-1 at 55-57.^[1]

The 2016 Judgment and P&F's Garnishments

P&F made several unsuccessful attempts to bill Howard before filing suit in Pierce County Superior Court for the principal debt amount of $3,847.25. Dkt. No. 22 at 1; Dkt. No. 29-1 at 5859.^[2] In September 2016, the superior court entered a default judgment against Howard for $4,194.76, with post-judgment interest accruing at 12% per year. Dkt. No. 22 at 1; Dkt. No. 22-2 at 1. That amount included the principal ($3,847.26), costs ($347.50), and attorney fees ($0). Dkt. No. 22-2 at 1. P&F then commenced four garnishments between September 2016 and February 2018 to collect the judgment amount plus interest. Dkt. No. 22 at 1-2; Dkt. No 21 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 17-2 at 2 (“Since I had two busy careers and I was getting myself and my family ready for retirement, I thought the most efficient way to be done with the debt was just allow the wage garnishments to happen.”). Before recounting the details any further however, the Court briefly summarizes Washington's garnishment procedure to contextualize what happened in this case.

State law requires plaintiffs like P&F to first apply for a writ of garnishment with the superior court. See Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.060. The superior court issues the writ of garnishment to the garnishee and directs the garnishee to answer the writ. See id. § 6.27.070. Once the garnishee answers the writ, see id. § 6.27.190, and assuming the garnishee's answer is not controverted, see id. § 6.27.210, the superior court will render judgment against the garnishee in the amount “found to be due to the defendant from the garnishee,” id. § 6.27.250(1)(a). Washington law then permits plaintiffs to “apply for the judgment and order to pay ex parte.” Id. Where, as here, the plaintiff does so, the superior court “order[s] the garnishee to pay to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's attorney through the registry of the court the amount of the judgment against the garnishee[.]” Id. (emphasis added). The clerk of court “note[s] receipt of any such payment” and, as particularly relevant here, “disburse[s] the payment to the plaintiff.” Id.; see also Dkt. No. 21 at 1 (summarizing these steps).

P&F followed this procedure for all four garnishments. And for the first three, things went off without a hitch. The initial garnishment occurred on December 29, 2016, when P&F sought and obtained an order for $173.01 (plus $96 in costs) from Howard's bank account at Harborstone Credit Union. See Dkt. No. 21-1 at 1-2 (December 2016 judgment on answer and order to pay). Two successful garnishments of Howard's wages followed on August 17, 2017 ($1,788.61), and February 2, 2018 ($2,174.30). See Dkt. No. 21-2 at 1-2 (August 2017 motion to disburse funds); Dkt. No. 21-5 at 1-2 (August 2017 order disbursing funds); Dkt. No. 21-3 at 1-2 (February 2018 motion to disburse funds); Dkt. No. 21-6 at 1-2 (February 2018 order disbursing funds). In all three proceedings, the clerk disbursed the garnished funds to P&F in accordance with state law. Not so with respect to the ill-fated fourth garnishment.

On February 23, 2018, P&F applied for the final writ of garnishment. It sought to collect the remaining balance of the default judgment ($63.84), the interest on the judgment that accrued between September 2016 and February 2018 ($350.04), and garnishment costs ($85.50) for a total of $499.38. Dkt. No. 17-3 at 10. On August 21, 2018, after Howard's employer answered the writ and tendered payment to the court registry, P&F moved to disburse the garnished funds. See Dkt. No. 21-4 at 1-2 (August 2018 motion to disburse funds). The court accordingly ordered the clerk to disburse to P&F $492.38. See Dkt. No. 21-7 at 1-2 (August 2018 order disbursing funds).^[3] But this money never made it into P&F's pockets. As it turns out, the clerk failed to transmit the funds. Dkt. No. 21 at 2. P&F thus never credited Howard's account with the fourth garnishment. Id.

The Debt Resurfaces

More than two years passed without a word. Then, in December 2020 P&F left Howard a voicemail alleging that she owed a balance on the September 2016 judgment. Dkt. No. 17-2 at 2. This marked the beginning of Howard's four-month odyssey to resolve the issue-one that entailed as many as 11 phone calls and five voicemails, most of which went unanswered or unreturned. See Dkt. No. 29-1 at 33; Dkt. No. 17-2 at 2.^[4] Whenever she succeeded in reaching a P&F representative, the format of the discussion was the same: the representative told Howard that she owed money; Howard disputed the debt; and the representative promised to investigate the debt and get back to her. But P&F never followed up with Howard on the results of its investigation. Howard now relies on four communications as the basis for this suit.

First up is a December 21, 2020 phone call with a P&F account representative. See Dkt. No. 17-3 at 14. There the representative told Howard that she owed $1,011.47 for the Target debt. Id. at 17. According to the representative, Howard had paid only $4,130.92 of the $5,142.39 account balance-the latter of which included $1,295.13 in accrued interest. Id. at 18. Howard further learned that the $2,174.30 wage garnishment in early February 2018 (the third garnishment) was the last amount credited to her account. Id. at 20. Howard took issue with this accounting. See id. at 17-18 (“[T]he final-the balance owed was $63.84; interest from the judgment up until February 2018 was [$]350; processing fees, [$]499[.] And that was garnished.”). And when Howard referenced the February 23, 2018 writ of garnishment, the representative promised to consult a P&F attorney and call back with the results of the investigation. Id. at 20.

That never happened. But P&F's senior paralegal did investigate the debt. Either the account representative to whom Howard spoke or another account representative from P&F's San Diego office contacted the paralegal on December 21, 2020-the same day of Howard's call-to inform her that “a consumer . . . believed that the balance on her account had been fully paid through garnishment.” Dkt. No. 21 at 2. The paralegal immediately “reviewed the account and determined that the court had signed an order disbursing . . . the fourth and final garnishment of $492.32 on August 21, 2018.” Id. She likewise concluded that although Howard's employer “had already sent the funds to the [c]ourt,” P&F “had not actually received the funds.” Id. The paralegal then called the clerk at the Pierce County Superior Court and “was told . . . that they had made a mistake and had forgotten to remit the funds to [P&F] back in August 2018.” Id. at 3. The clerk apologized and indicated that he would mail the check for the garnished funds the following morning. Id. According to the paralegal's declaration now before the Court, had P&F received the check in August 2018, “the judgment would have been satisfied[.]” Id. at 3.^[5]

P&F communicated none of this information to Howard. Nor did the paralegal's December 2020 phone call to the clerk end the administrative debacle. Despite promising to send P&F a check for the final garnishment, the clerk again failed to do so, and Howard's account remained open for several more months. See Dkt. No. 21 at 3. P&F meanwhile forged ahead with its collection efforts. On February 18, 2021, it sent Howard a letter proposing to settle the remaining debt for $505.74, or 50% of the alleged account balance ($1,011.47). See Dkt. No. 17-2 at 6. P&F's letter urged Howard to call its office “to confirm arrangement” before the settlement offer expired on April 4, 2021. Id. It further indicated that, upon receipt of such payment, Howard's account would be “considered settled in full and no more sums w[ould] be due and payable.” Id.

Howard called P&F and spoke with another account representative on February 25, 2021. See Dkt. No. 17-3 at 24. Here again, P&F failed to provide an update on its purported investigation into the disputed debt amount and continued to claim that Howard owed a balance on the judgment. The representative confirmed that P&F received only the funds from the first three garnishments ($4,130.92 total) and that the balance on Howard's account was $1,011.47. See id. at 30-31. The representative further explained that, following P&F's receipt of the third garnishment, Howard's account balance was $892.46-an amount different from that sought by P&F in its final writ of garnishment. See Dkt. No. 17-3 at 31-32.^[6] Howard immediately noted this discrepancy. See Dkt. No. 17-3 at 31 (“Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Why-why was there a balance not written up . . . on that final garnishment? Why wasn't that added into the final garnishment order[?]”); id. at 32 (“Because I've got a garnishment here, a...