Ellis v. Palisades Acquisition XVI LLC, and Protas, Spivok & Collins, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

 

Filed: July 26, 2019

Opinion: Chief Judge James K. Bredar

Holdings:

(1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgement is denied because issues of intent, knowledge, and identity of debt are all factual issues that require discovery;

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim is denied because the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations and the complaint properly alleged that the debt at issue was incurred for “personal, family, or household purposes.”

(3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) is granted in part, and denied in part, because plaintiff could only plausibly allege that one of the defendants had knowledge that the underlying debt had been previously collected.

(4) Violation of the MCDCA is a per se violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) preventing dismissal of Plaintiff’s MCPA claim.

(5) Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for abuse of process.

Facts:

Donald Ellis (“Plaintiff”) sued Palisades Acquisition LLC (“Palisades”) and Protas, Spivok & Collins, LLC (“Protas,” and collectively with Palisades, “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants attempted to collect a debt that Plaintiff did not owe, and consequently violated the FDCPA and Maryland state law. Plaintiff had a credit card with Providian Bank that was used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Plaintiff incurred a debt on the credit card upon which a judgment was obtained. Defendant Palisades ultimately became the owner of the Plaintiff’s debt.  

Palisades retained Asset Acceptance to collect the debt. Plaintiff paid Asset Acceptance to satisfy the debt; however, Palisades did not file a satisfaction of judgment in Maryland court acknowledging the payment. Instead, Palisades retained Defendant Protas, a law firm, to collect the debt for the second time. Plaintiff was unaware that Protas was attempting to collect the same debt as Asset Acceptance and filed a Motion for an Exemption from Garnishment.  Defendants, in the second attempt to collect the debt, obtained a garnishment order that was executed against Plaintiff’s bank account resulting in the funds being withdrawn and an overdraft charge against Plaintiff.

Alleging that Defendants were attempting to collect the same debt twice, Plaintiff filed this action claiming violations of the FDCPA, the MCDCA, the MCPA, and abuse of process. Defendants moved for summary judgement on all claims, or in the alternative, moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim.

Analysis:

The court denied the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the Plaintiff raised issues that were genuinely in dispute and requiring discovery. Contrary to Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendants asserted that the debt at issue was actually two different debts. However, whether the debt is actually two debts or a single debt is a factual issue. Furthermore, Plaintiff is required to prove Defendants’ knowledge and intent as elements of the claims. Such factual issues preclude summary judgment.

Alternatively, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied in part because Plaintiff plausibly alleged violations of the FDCPA and Maryland state law.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. However, while the Defendants’ attempt to collect the debt twice began more than a year before the suit was instituted, the Plaintiff asserts that he was unaware, and could not have reasonably known, that the debt being collected was the same in both instances. Thus, the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations and the suit was properly brought within the limitations period.

Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged that Defendants violated the FDCPA. Violations of the FDCPA require the debt at issue to be incurred primarily for “personal, family or household purposes . . . .” 15 U.S.C. §1692(a). Plaintiff’s bald assertion that the credit card was used for personal, family, or household purposes, as required by the statute, is sufficient on its own to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s MCDCA claims as to Defendant Protas, but denied as to Defendant Palisades.  Violation of the MCDCA requires Plaintiff to prove that the Defendants knew that collection of the debt was improper. The court held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Palisades knew collection of debt the second time was improper because it could be inferred that Asset Acceptance – the entity first contracted to collect the debt – informed Palisades of its successful collection of the debt. However, it was not alleged that Defendant Protas, who was subsequently contracted to collect the debt, had any knowledge of any previous efforts to collect the debt at issue. As such, the knowledge element required to be pled under the MCDCA had been met as to Defendant Palisades, but not as to Defendant Protos. Thus, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the MCDCA claim as to Defendant Protas.

The court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the MCPA claims on the grounds that violation of the MCDCA is a per se violation of the MCPA.

Finally, the court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim because Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support that Defendants instituted the action to satisfy an ulterior motive or that Plaintiff was damaged by Defendants’ perverted use of process.

 The full opinion is available in PDF

Garner v. ClaimAssist, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: August 9, 2018

Opinion by: Judge Hollander

Holding:  An entity seeking to collect a nondefaulted debt on behalf of another entity is not considered a debt collector as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

Facts:  Plaintiff was injured in a car accident and received medical treatment for her injuries at a hospital ("Hospital"). Plaintiff retained a lawyer to pursue a tort case relating to the accident.

Hospital’s sole member (the "Member") hired defendant to identify and seek reimbursement from third-party payors in auto liability accounts. Member transferred these accounts before they were in default. Defendant would then reach out to the patient to determine the appropriate third-party payor.

Plaintiff’s medical account was transferred to defendant to identify the proper third-party payor. Defendant sent a letter to the attorney retained to notify the plaintiff of the unpaid medical bills and that a hospital lien had been filed and attached to any reimbursement of funds as a result of the accident.

Plaintiff’s medical bill related to the accident was $801.16. Plaintiff has medical insurance and U.S. Medicare. Plaintiff alleges that the Hospital should have received payment through her medical insurance. As of April 28, 2015, the Hospital has not processed the bill. Plaintiff alleges that the debt was therefore "plainly false, inaccurate, deceptive, and/or misleading."

The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that they are not a debt collector under the FDCPA.

Analysis: The FDCPA was enacted to protect consumers from "false, deceptive, or misleading" debt collection practices. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). To establish a claim under the FDCPA, one must prove: “(1) the plaintiff has been the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt; (2) the defendant is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA; and (3) the defendant has engaged in an act or omission prohibited by the FDCPA."

The FDCPA differentiates a debt collector from a creditor by looking at the status of the debt when assigned to the entity. The status of the entity will change depending on whether the debt was or was not in default when acquired by the entity.

The FDCPA defines a debt collector as

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.

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

The FDCPA excludes as a debt collector "any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another . . . which was not in default at the time it was obtained." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)

The FDCPA defines a creditor as:

any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4).

Courts have included within the term creditor, and not debt collector, entities collecting debts assigned to them before default. The intention was to exclude loan servicers of debt that was not in default to be included as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

There is no dispute of material fact of whether the account was in default when the Member transferred the account to defendant. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence showing the account was in default. Further, defendant was seeking to collect the debt of another, the Member. Defendant, therefore, falls under the 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F) debt collector exclusion reserved for an entity collecting nondefaulted debt of another.

Therefore, the Court granted the Summary Judgment Motion as to plaintiff’s FDCPA Claims.

The full opinion is available in PDF. 

Thomas v. Cameron Mericle, P.A. (Cir. Ct. Mont. Cnty)

Filed: October 4, 2018

Opinion by: Anne K. Albright

Facts: The following facts are as alleged by the plaintiffs in their complaint and recited in the Circuit Court’s decision.  Two homeowners’ associations (HOAs), through two law firms, separately sought to recover HOA dues from two individuals.  With respect to one individual, suit had been filed in a District Court of Maryland to recover the dues.  The law firm in that action threatened to move forward with trial unless the individual signed a confessed judgment promissory note to settle the matter.  The individual signed the note and made all the payments due under the note; however, the law firm confessed judgment against the individual and filed a complaint for judgment by confession in the District Court.  With respect to the other individual, the law firm threatened to file suit unless the individual signed a confessed judgment promissory note to settle the matter.  The individual signed the note and began making the payments due under the note; however, the law firm confessed judgment against the individual and filed a complaint for judgment by confession in the District Court of Maryland.  In both instances, the confessed judgment note included a clause that appointed an attorney on behalf of the individual, who had authority, without any prior notice to or approval from the individual, to file for entry of a confessed judgment against the individual, in a way that waived the individual’s right to assert a legal defense to any action.  The law firms knew or had reason to know that the HOA dues arose from a consumer transaction or debt.

Based on the facts set forth above, the two individuals filed suit against the law firms, asserting the following six claims: (1) violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”); (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of contract; (4) fraud; (5) money had and received; and (6) declaratory judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently abandoned the breach of contract claim.  The law firms moved to dismiss the five remaining claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The law firms sought to have all of the claims dismissed with prejudice on the basis of res judicata, arguing that the individuals could have raised defenses to the confessed judgments with the filing of a timely motion in the District Court, and having failed to do so, the individuals were barred from bringing those claims in the Circuit Court action.  Alternatively, the law firms sought to have the claims dismissed on the basis of the facts plead and the merits of the claims.

Analysis/Holding:  The Circuit Court rejected the law firms’ res judicata argument, holding that, because the individuals’ claims were not mandatory counterclaims in the underlying confessed judgment proceedings before the District Court and were not litigated in those proceedings, the individuals were not precluded from asserting the claims in the Circuit Court.  The Court also noted that, even if they had wanted to, the individuals could not have asserted their claims in the confessed judgment proceedings because the claims were either equitable in nature or the amount in controversy exceeded $30,000, such that the claims fell outside the jurisdiction of the District Court.  

Next, the Court discussed the MCDCA claim (Count 1).  The Court noted that “[t]o prove an MCDCA violation, a plaintiff must prove that 1) defendant is a debt collector; 2) defendant’s conduct in attempting to collect a debt was prohibited by the MCDCA [(e.g., to claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist)]; and 3) the underlying debt is ‘consumer’ in nature.”  In seeking dismissal of the MCDCA claim, the law firms focused on the first and third elements listed above, arguing that because the debts arose out of confessed judgment promissory notes, which are settlements separate from the underlying consumer transaction, the law firms were not “debt collectors” seeking to collect “consumer” debt.  The Court rejected that argument, holding that “the Law Firms used Confessed Judgment Promissory Notes and then sought confessed judgments.  Because use of those notes and pursuit of those judgments are additional steps the Law Firms allegedly took in order to collect HOA dues, both steps are subject to the MCDCA.”  The Court ultimately dismissed the MCDCA claim on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the law firms had any actual or constructive knowledge of wrongful conduct, as required under the second element of the claim.  However, the dismissal was without prejudice and with leave to amend the complaint, with the Court noting that a viable MCDCA claim might be asserted if the law firms charged inappropriate “add-on” fees and costs, such as late charges, attorneys’ fees or default interest, with knowledge or reckless disregard of the fact that such add-on fees and costs were not properly chargeable.

The Court then dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim (Count 2), with prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege, and that the Court could not identify, a duty of care owed by the law firms to the individuals.  The Court next dismissed the fraud claim (Count 4) and the money had and received claim (Count 5) because the individuals failed to allege actual facts, rather than general allegations, in support of requisite elements of those claims.  Finally, the Court, having dismissed all of the other claims, held that there was no current actual controversy between the plaintiffs and the law firms, and dismissed the declaratory judgment claim (Count 6).

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.

Peckey v. Bank of America, N.A. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: April 10, 2015

Opinion by: Richard D. Bennett

Holdings:  The Court denied Defendant Loan Servicer’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for violations of three statutes: 1) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); 2) the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”); 3) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”).

While Defendant Loan Servicer’s communication to collect Plaintiff’s non-existent mortgage debt was time barred under the FDCPA, the Defendant’s more recent false representation regarding the non-existent debt was not time barred.  The Court held Plaintiff sufficiently pled that Defendant Loan Servicer possessed the requisite knowledge to violate the MCDCA.  The Court also held Defendant Loan Servicer’s alleged false reporting of delinquencies plausibly harmed Plaintiff’s credit score and caused him stress and anxiety.  Further, the Court held that Plaintiff sufficiently pled a violation of the MCPA. 

Facts:  Plaintiff defaulted on a loan from Defendant Bank to purchase property (the “Loan”).  To avoid foreclosure, Plaintiff agreed to a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure transaction (“DIL”) conveying the property to Defendant Bank.  Plaintiff fulfilled all of the requisite steps to complete the DIL.  Shortly thereafter, however, Defendant Bank sent Plaintiff a letter stating his loan would be serviced by Defendant Loan Servicer and Defendant Bank sent Plaintiff another letter stating it was unable to offer Plaintiff a DIL. 

Then, Defendant Loan Servicer sent Plaintiff a letter stating it had taken over loan servicing for Plaintiff’s property and sent Plaintiff a monthly payment notice demanding $55,190.29 for the current payment, past due payment, and late charges/fees.  In response, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Loan Servicer stating that he successfully completed a DIL with Defendant Bank and requested that it cease and desist making debt collection phone calls to him. Defendant Loan Servicer nevertheless continued to demand payment.  Plaintiff’s credit reports showed the DIL terminated the Loan, but that Plaintiff had a deficiency with Defendant Loan Servicer.

Defendant Loan Servicer filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA.

Analysis:  FDCPA:  The FDCPA requires that a plaintiff bring a claim within one year from the date on which a violation occurs (15 U.S.C.A. 1692k(d)).  Defendant Loan Servicer’s communication to collect Plaintiff’s non-existent debt occurred more than one year before suit was filed.  However, Defendant Loan Servicer’s false delinquency report to the credit bureaus and Plaintiff’s accessing of his credit reports occurred within one year before filing suit.  Thus, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim was not barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations.       

MCDCA:  Liability arises under Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-202(8) when a defendant acted “with actual knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity of the information . . .”  Plaintiff’s allegation that he provided the DIL and other documentation to Defendant Loan Servicer was sufficient to plead that Defendant had “actual knowledge.”  Plaintiff alleged he sent a message to Defendant Loan Servicer indicating the Loan had been satisfied with title transferring by the DIL, that it failed to investigate Plaintiff’s response, and it failed to consider information readily available in Plaintiff’s credit history.  The Court ruled that this was sufficient to plead Defendant Loan Servicer acted with “reckless disregard.”  The Court further stated that, although Plaintiff bears the burden to prove Defendant Loan Servicer’s actions proximately caused his damages, it is plausible its action caused the harm to Plaintiff’s credit score as well as stress and anxiety.  

MCPA: The Court determined that because Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a violation of the MCDCA and a violation of the MCDCA is a per se violation of the MCPA, Plaintiff sufficiently pled a violation of the MCPA.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Bradshaw v. Hillco Receivables, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: February 23, 2011

Opinion by: Judge Richard D. Bennett

Held: A debt collector violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by violating State law for failing to register as a debt collector. In addition, the unlicensed filing of lawsuits to collect debts purchased from original creditors is violative of the FDCPA. Both questions are issues of first impression in this district and in the Fourth Circuit.

Facts: On June 17, 2009, the creditor (Defendant in the underlying case) filed suit against the debtor in the District Court of Maryland for Frederick County in order to collect a debt that it purchased from the debtor's original creditors after the debt went into default. The debtor then brought a separate class action against the creditor, asserting claims that the creditor acted as a debt collector in the State of Maryland without a license and that the creditor unlawfully filed lawsuits against the debtor and others as part of its debt collection practices. The debtor contends that the creditor, through its actions, violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-201 et seq., and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-101 et seq.

Analysis: The creditor acquired the debtor's delinquent account while it was in default, and the creditor is a person who engages directly or indirectly in the business of collecting such consumer claims. According to the Court, the creditor is therefore a "collection agency" within the meaning of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 7-101, et seq. ("MCALA"). In the Court's view, the statutory scheme and its legislative history confirm that the statute is intended to cover not only agents of the original owners of consumer debts but also purchasers of such debt such as the creditor here. Debt purchasers who collect consumer claims through civil litigation are therefore subject to the licensing requirement. The Court found that the creditor violated this requirement when it failed to obtain a collection agency license prior to suing the debtor to collect a debt purchased from the debtor's original creditor. According to the Court, although the creditor's violation of MCALA's licensing requirement does not itself give rise to a private right of action, it may support a cause of action under the FDCPA. The Court specifically declined to hold that any violation of state law, no matter how trivial, constitutes a per se violation of the FDCPA. The FDCPA prohibits the use of any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt,” 15 U.S.C. §1692e, and provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct that violates the FDCPA, including “[t]he threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).

The creditor argued that it was not liable for violating the FDCPA because it did not threaten to take illegal action against the debtor but, rather, merely filed an illegal lawsuit against him. Although noting a split of authority among the circuits, the Court adopted the majority view, holding that the relevant section of the FDCPA prohibits the taking of “action that cannot legally be taken,” as well as the threatening of such action. Furthermore, under the "least sophisticated debtor" standard prevailing in the Fourth Circuit, the Court held that the filing of an illegal collection lawsuit would reasonably be construed by such a debtor as a threat to take illegal action.

The Court also held that the creditor was also not protected by the "bona fide error" defense, namely, that “the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). The Court held that this defense was not available to the creditor because of the Supreme Court's recent holding in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605, 1608 (2010) that it does not apply to a violation resulting from a debt collector’s mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA.

For essentially the same reasons as it found the creditor liable for violating the FDCPA, the Court also determined, on summary judgment, that the creditor had violated the MCDCA and the MCPA. Similar in purpose and scope to the FDCPA, the MCDCA states that a “person collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt arising out of a consumer transaction” may not “[c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-201(b) & 14-202(8). The MCPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices,” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301, and expressly designates as “unfair or deceptive trade practices” those that constitute any violation of the MCDCA. Each statute provides for a private right of action for its violation. The Court determined that because the creditor was not immunized from its conduct based on a mistake of law (i.e., that it was not required to be licensed under the MCALA), and because the creditor actually violated that law and was reckless as to whether its conduct was proscribed, the knowledge element of the MCDCA was satisfied. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ruled that the debtor was entitled to partial summary judgment, on liability only, on its claims for damages under the FDCPA, the MCDCA, and the MCPA (Counts II, III, and IV).

As a result of Judge Blake's recent opinion in Hauk v. LVNV Funding, LLC, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 4395395 (D. Md. Nov. 5, 2010), the Court held that declaratory and injunctive relief was not available to the debtor in the case at bar. The Court therefore found that the creditor was entitled to summary judgment on the debtor's Count I, which sought such relief.

Practice Tip: Judge Bennett specifically noted that the "FDCPA is a strict liability statute and a consumer has only to prove one violation in order to trigger liability." Consumer debt purchasers would therefore be wise to comply fully with this statute and its Maryland counterpart in order to avoid liability to consumers, including those, like the debtor in this case, who do not dispute the validity or amount of the underlying debt.

Related Opinion: In an earlier opinion granting the debtor's motion to strike the creditor's affirmative defenses, Judge Bennett held that the plausibility standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S.__, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) applies to the pleading of affirmative defenses.

The full opinion is available in pdf..