Faison v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 1/13/17. (kao)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KEITH FAISON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-2285-CM MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Keith Faison brought this case against defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the FDCPA when he sent him a debt collection letter that included misleading and deceptive representations. The matter is now before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13) and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15). The parties stipulated to most of the relevant facts in the case. According to these facts, plaintiff owed debt to CIT Bank. Plaintiff had not made a payment on the debt since April, 2008 and the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit on the debt expired on April 3, 2011. CIT Bank sold plaintiff’s debt to defendant in February, 2011. On April 8, 2015, Defendant sent plaintiff a letter that stated: “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, we will not report it to any credit reporting agency, and payment or non-payment of this debt will not affect your credit score.” The letter also included the following information: -1- The letter did not conta any threa of litiga T ain ats ation, nor di it use the term “sett id e tlement” or “settle.” Defendant also had a written policy providing t a w y that once a d debt was out of statute, it would not t t ate te ions if it rec ceived paym ment toward the debt reg gardless of w whether the recalcula the statut of limitati law allow for reviv of the sta wed val atute of limit tations. Both parties have moved for summar judgment on the issue of whether the letter a issue was B h d ry t e r at deceptive and misle e eading in violation of the FDCPA. Summary judgment is appropria when a . y ate moving party demon p nstrates that there is “no genuine issu as to any material fac and that i is entitled t ue ct” it to “judgm as a ma ment atter of law.” Fed. R. Ci P. 56(a). ” iv. Defendant ar D rgues the let does no violate th FDCPA b tter ot he because the Statute of L Limitations Disclosur re—that de efendant wo ould not su on the d ue debt becaus it was o se outside the statute of limitation ns—was true at the time the letter was sent. Pl e w laintiff, how wever, argues the letter i deceptive s is and misleading beca ause it failed to disclose the revivab nature of a time-barr debt in K d ble f red Kansas and -2- that the letter included the benefits to making a payment on the debt without disclosing the legal consequences of making a payment under Kansas law. This court recently addressed this identical issue in Smothers v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 16-2202-CM, 2016 WL 7485686 (D. Kan. December 29, 2016). The court will adopt the legal findings from that case and conclude as a matter of law that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending the above letter to plaintiff. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is granted. Dated January 13, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Carlos Murguia CARLOS MURGUIA United States District Judge -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?