
In Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff’s attorney that failed to disclose the plaintiff had to dispute her debt in writing. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the defendant had violated Section 1692g of the FDCPA that requires this notice as well as a violation of Section 1692e that prohibits “false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”
A district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. On appeal to the 11th Circuit, the court resolved the following three issues:
- Whether a debt collection sent to the plaintiff’s attorney constituted a “communication with the consumer” necessary to trigger Section 1692g of the FDCPA. The court found that although the communication was indirect, it was still a communication with the consumer.
- Whether the omission of the “in writing” notice constitutes a waiver of that requirement by the debt collector. The court found that the language of the statute was clear in requiring a debt collector to inform the consumer of her right to dispute the debt in writing.
- Whether the omission of the “in writing” notice constitutes a claim for “false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt” in violation of Section 1692e. The court found that the plaintiff’s alleged facts were sufficient to state a claim under Section 1692e, although whether the communication at issue was in fact false or deceptive is a question to be determined by a jury.
The attorneys at Glass & Goldberg in California provide high quality, cost-effective legal services and advice for clients in all aspects of commercial compliance, business litigation and transactional law. Call us at (818) 888-2220, send an email inquiry to info@glassgoldberg.com or visit us online at glassgoldberg.com to learn more about the firm and to sign up for future newsletters.
