Phillips v. Periodical Publishers' Service Bureau, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 23113,23113 |
| Citation | 388 S.E.2d 787,300 S.C. 444 |
| Parties | David PHILLIPS, Respondent, v. PERIODICAL PUBLISHERS' SERVICE BUREAU, INC., d/b/a National Collection Agency, Petitioner. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Paul R. Hibbard and Donna Faye Shetley, of Johnson, Smith, Hibbard & Wildman, Spartanburg, for petitioner.
Judson K. Chapin, III, of Perrin, Perrin, Mann & Patterson, Spartanburg, for respondent.
Respondent David Phillips sued Petitioner Periodical Publishers' Service Bureau, Inc. (Service Bureau), alleging that Service Bureau employed improper debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1692 to 1692o (1982). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Service Bureau. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Service Bureau is a debt collector subject to the FDCPA. This Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in this case. See Phillips v. Periodical Publishers' Service Bureau, Inc., d/b/a National Collection Agency, 295 S.C. 500, 369 S.E.2d 154 (Ct.App.1988). We now reverse.
This action arose out of attempts by Service Bureau, doing business as National Collection Agency (NCA), to collect a debt owed by Phillips for a magazine subscription sold and delivered to Phillips by the Hearst Corporation (Hearst). Hearst is the parent corporation of Service Bureau, and NCA is an unincorporated division of Service Bureau.
In attempting to collect the debt, Service Bureau mailed three collection letters to Phillips. Each letter contained the following heading: "NATIONAL COLLECTION AGENCY Division of PERIODICAL PUBLISHERS' SERVICE BUREAU, INC., Subsidiary The Hearst Corporation." The correspondence to Phillips expressly identifies Hearst as Phillips' creditor.
The question presented for review is whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that Service Bureau is a debt collector as defined in the FDCPA.
Section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA defines "debt collector," in relevant part, as follows:
§ 1692a. Definitions
(6) The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.... [T]he term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.
The term does not include
. . . . .
(B) any person while acting as a debt collector for another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the person acting as a debt collector does so only for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if the principal business of such person is not the collection of debts; ... (emphasis added).
Specific types of transactions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gentry v. Yonce
...6:XX-XXXX-X (D.S.C. July 5, 1994). However, this decision is not binding on this Court. See Phillips v. Periodical Publishers' Ser v. Bureau, Inc., 300 S.C. 444, 388 S.E.2d 787 (1989). Accordingly, the circuit court erred in holding a violation of this section could not be a predicate act s......
-
Video Gaming Consultants v. SC DOR
...is not binding on this Court. See Gentry v. Yonce, 337 S.C. 1, 522 S.E.2d 137 (1999) (citing Phillips v. Periodical Publishers' Serv. Bureau, Inc., 300 S.C. 444, 388 S.E.2d 787 (1989)). Furthermore, the Reyelt decision, the ALJ, and the circuit court all relied heavily upon the case of Posa......
-
Lyons v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co.
...236, 456 S.E.2d 912, 915 (1995) (stating that ambiguities are construed against the insurer); Phillips v. Periodical Publishers' Serv. Bureau, Inc., 300 S.C. 444, 446, 388 S.E.2d 787, 789 (1989) (explaining that although a district court's decision is not binding, it is nevertheless persuas......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Windham
...However, "we find the [district's court's] reasoning logical and its conclusion persuasive." Phillips v. Periodical Publishers’ Serv. Bureau, Inc. , 300 S.C. 444, 446, 388 S.E.2d 787, 789 (1989). Windham is a named insured or the spouse of a named insured under all of her and her husband's ......