A District Court judge in Texas has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it failed to mention that a partial payment may revive the statute of limitations on a time-barred debt because state law in Texas requires written acknowledgement in order for the statute to be revived, and that using the word “we” in a collection letter does not misrepresent authority to file a lawsuit over an unpaid debt.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Christie v. Contract Callers can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter included the following statement: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, we [CCI] may report or continue to report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid.” The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Section 1692e(2) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA because a least sophisticated consumer may be misled into thinking that making any kind of payment on the debt would restart the statute of limitations.
Looking at another case from the same district — Gonzales v. Portfolio Recovery Associates — Judge Mark Pittman of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, noted that a motion to dismiss was granted because a partial payment is not enough to revive the statute of limitations in Texas.
“… The Court finds that there is nothing false, deceptive, or misleading when [the defendant] informed Plaintiff that there is a statute of limitations limiting how long Plaintiff could be sued to collect the debt and that Plaintiff would not be sued for debt,” Judge Pittman wrote. “Read together, these sentences inform even the least sophisticated consumer that there is a statute of limitations and unequivocally that [the defendant] would not sue because of the age of the debt.”
The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant misrepresented its legal position in the letter when it said “we” will not sue. Whether a least sophisticated consumer would be confused by the use of the word “we” does not “create more than simple confusion,” Judge Pittman wrote. “When read as a whole, the letter is a 30-day debt validation letter that expressly states there is a statute of limitations that limits how long Plaintiff can be sued on a debt and that because of the age of the debt ‘we’ — which could reasonably be read to mean either [the defendant] individually or [the defendant] and [the creditor] collectively — would not sue Plaintiff on it. There is no offer to “settle” or urgent warnings that Plaintiff’s failure to make a partial payment would result in litigation. [The defendant]’s statement that “we” will not sue does not create confusion to the unsophisticated consumer because the identities of the creditor (T-Mobile) and the debt collector (CCI) are apparent from the face of the letter. The fact that CCI may not technically have standing or capacity to sue would not cause an unsophisticated consumer to alter any decision-making and give up any substantive right in favor of the creditor and/or debt collector.”