Claim against collector rejected because plaintiff not a ‘consumer’ under state law - FINANCIAL-24
By Thomas G. Wolfe, J.D.An individual who received numerous phone calls from a debt collection company in its effort to locate another person who was delinquent on his account was not a ‘consumer’ under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals recently determined. In Young v. EOSSCA, West Virginia’s high court held that “by limiting the right to recover for a violation of the Act to those persons defined as ‘consumers,’ the Legislature has expressly prohibited any persons falling outside the definition of a ‘consumer’ from seeking damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the provisions of [the WVCCPA].” Concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her WVCCPA claim, the court upheld a summary judgment in favor of the debt collector.
As relayed by the court’s opinion, although the plaintiff, Edith Young, received over 70 phone calls from a debt collection company, EOSCCA, she almost never picked up the phone to speak with the caller. Instead, Young “just registered the caller’s identifying information that appeared on her phone.” Although Young stated in her deposition that “Bank Americard” appeared on her caller ID for these calls, the collection company did not have any affiliation with Bank Americard. Still, the collection company’s records corroborated Young’s receipt of these numerous calls to her home.
There was some evidence showing that, on at least one occasion, the collection company called Young asking for “Jim or James,” and Young responded to the effect that “he’s not home or he’s not available or he’s not there.” In any event, it was well established that Young herself did not have any specific debt pertaining to the company’s calls. Rather, the calls were made by the company as “an attempt to locate an AT&T customer who was delinquent on his account.”
Complaint. In her complaint, Young alleged that the collection company violated the WVCCPA by “engaging in unreasonable or oppressive or abusive conduct in an attempt to collect a debt.” She further contended that the company attempted to communicate with her after she indicated she was represented by counsel. Young also brought state common-law claims against the company.
Appeal. After the state trial court granted summary judgment to the collection company and dismissed her complaint, Young appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Young maintained that, even though the collector was not seeking to contact her about a debt she personally owed, she should be permitted to pursue her WVCCPA claim because: (i) she qualified as a WVCCPA consumer in a “generic fashion” based on debts she owed to other creditors, or, alternatively; (ii) the WVCCPA covers abusive debt collection practices made in connection with a debt owed to a third party.
WVCCPA. The court noted that the WVCCPA provides a definition of a “consumer” under two provisions. Under the general definition section, a consumer refers to “a natural person who incurs debt pursuant to a consumer credit sale or a consumer loan, or debt or other obligations pursuant to a consumer lease.” Next, under a separate section pertaining to improper credit collection practices, the WVCCPA refers to a consumer as “any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.”
Court’s analysis. Since Young had invoked the more specific provision in her complaint, the court viewed that statutory section as the more dominant of the two definitional provisions for purposes of its analysis.
Alleged debtor. In rejecting Young’s argument that she should be considered an “alleged debtor,” based on the repeated phone calls to her residence, the court stressed that the phone calls were not directed toward her as an alleged debtor. The WVCCPA allowed the collection company to lawfully contact her to “locate the actual debtor.” Moreover, Young later learned, at least from one answered call, that she was not the individual with whom the collection company was seeking to communicate. In the court’s view, Young was not able to show that she was “at least allegedly obligated” on the debt under state law.
Person v. consumer. Next, the court rejected Young’s contention that the WVCCPA provision governing prohibited debt collection practices against “any person” was rendered meaningless to non-consumers if statutory remedies were limited elsewhere to only “consumers.” The court maintained that the WVCCPA provision was not rendered meaningless because non-consumers could file a complaint with the West Virginia Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division and could bring a private action against a debt collector under a negligence theory, for example. Also, the West Virginia Legislature was entitled to limit WVCCPA recovery in private actions to “consumers” as the class of people most likely to be harmed by violations, the court asserted.
Generic consumer. Young’s argument that she should be considered a generic consumer for purposes of the WVCCPA did not prevail as well. In underscoring the WVCCPA’s statutory definition of a “claim,” the court stated that Young “was neither obligated to AT&T on the debt at issue nor was she ever advised by its debt collector … that she was obligated on the subject debt.” No obligation or alleged obligation was present to satisfy the “claim” definition, the court concluded.
FDCPA contrasted. Although Young pointed to federal case law in support of her position, the court distinguished the coverage of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act from the coverage of the WVCCPA. In particular, the court noted that the FDCPA broadly extends its rights of enforcement with respect to any person. In contrast, the WVCCPA “expressly limits its grant of civil enforcement suits” to a consumer.
For more information about debt-collection litigation, subscribe to the Banking and Finance Law Daily.
This is the article Claim against collector rejected because plaintiff not a ‘consumer’ under state law - FINANCIAL-24 this time, hopefully can benefit for you all. well, see you in other article post.
Title : Claim against collector rejected because plaintiff not a ‘consumer’ under state law - FINANCIAL-24
link : Claim against collector rejected because plaintiff not a ‘consumer’ under state law - FINANCIAL-24
0 Response to "Claim against collector rejected because plaintiff not a ‘consumer’ under state law - FINANCIAL-24"
Post a Comment