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)

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-