Ivy v. Nations Recovery Center, Inc. et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order.Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 6/6/12. (ABF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
SHIRLEY IVY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER, INC.,
ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE, INC.,
ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE
SPECIAL FINANCE UNIT, LLC, and
ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE
SPECIAL FINANCE UNIT III LLC,
Defendants.
No. 2:12-CV-037
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Nations Recovery Center, Inc. (“defendant”) has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [doc.
13]. Plaintiff has responded in opposition. Oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons
that follow, defendant’s motion will be denied.
I.
Applicable Legal Standards
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize dismissal for “failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, “a pleading must contain a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ . . . A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing and quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570 (2007)).
II.
Background
Defendant sent plaintiff a collection letter dated January 24, 2011. That letter
is the subject of this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) lawsuit. In material part,
the letter twice contains the following information:
Atlantic Credit
Balance: $2,067.01
[Doc. 1, ex. 1]. According to the complaint, plaintiff received no further communication
from the defendants.
Another letter, dated April 28, 2011, was sent to plaintiff by a different debt
collector on behalf of a different creditor. [Doc. 1, ex. 2]. That communication referenced
the same account number as the January 24 letter and was apparently a subsequent attempt
to collect the same credit card debt. The April 28 letter states a “current balance” of
$2,167.27 and is the subject of a separate case pending before this court (2:12-CV-178).
2
Plaintiff filed her complaint in this case on January 29, 2012. She contends
that the January 24 letter did not adequately state the amount of the debt and the name of the
creditor to whom the debt is owed. Plaintiff contends that defendant violated the FDCPA
by failing to send her a follow-up letter containing that information within five days after the
initial communication. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1)-(2).
Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint as untimely under the
FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Defendant argues that
the January 24, 2011 letter sufficiently stated the amount of debt and the identity of the
creditor, and therefore the complaint should have been filed no later than January 24, 2012.
III.
Analysis
The requirement that a validation notice correctly state the amount of the debt
has produced conflicting judicial opinions. Some courts have held that a
validation notice fails to satisfy the statute unless it states the total amount due
as of the date the letter is sent and also discloses whether the amount of the
debt will increase due to interest. . . . [O]ther courts have held that a validation
notice satisfies the statute if it states the total amount of the debt (including
interest and any other charges) as of the date the letter is sent.
Jones v. Midland Funding, 755 F. Supp. 2d 393, 397 (D. Conn. 2010) (citations and footnote
omitted).
The letter at issue in this case references an unspecified reduced settlement
offer but does not clarify whether the debt was continuing to accrue interest, nor does the
3
letter specify a deadline by which the unspecified settlement offer must be accepted. Plaintiff
cites the higher balance contained in the April 28 letter (an increase of $100.26) as evidence
that the debt continued to accrue interest and/or other charges.
“[E]ven the most unsophisticated consumer would understand that credit card
debt accrues interest.” Weiss v. Zwicker & Assocs., 664 F. Supp. 2d 214, 217 (E.D.N.Y.
2009). Nonetheless, for purposes of the present 12(b)(6) motion (and based on current
persuasive authority in this district), the court concludes that plaintiff’s complaint, taken as
true, states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The April 28 letter indicates that
plaintiff’s debt continued to accrue interest and/or other charges. It is therefore plausible that
the January 24 letter
did not correctly state the amount of the debt because it failed to indicate that
interest was accruing and the applicable interest rate; therefore, Plaintiff has
adequately alleged Defendant’s stated balance of [$2,067.01] was not accurate
and had to be accurately stated within five days from the January [24, 2011]
letter. As it was not, Plaintiff has adequately alleged facts in the . . . Complaint
supporting a claim for a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1).
Stonecypher v. Finkelstein Kern Steinberg & Cunningham, Attorneys, No. 2:11-cv-13, 2011
WL 3489685, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 9, 2011) (footnote omitted). While it is certainly
possible that the instant debt was not accruing interest while it was a collection account of
the present defendants, that is a question for summary judgment rather than a motion to
dismiss. See Jones, 755 F. Supp. 2d at 396; Register v. Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, PC, 488
F. Supp. 2d 143, 149 (D. Conn. 2007).
4
To clarify, this memorandum concludes only that plaintiff has - on the facts of
this case - stated a claim upon which relief can be granted because the defendant’s January
24 letter did not state whether interest was accruing and, if so, the currently-applicable
interest rate. Plaintiff’s complaint was therefore timely filed within the applicable statute of
limitations. The court expresses no opinion as to whether the FDCPA requires that any
additional information be contained in defendant’s letter, or in what form. Further, because
the current motion can be resolved solely on the issue of the amount of debt, the court need
not at this time address plaintiff’s contention that defendant did not adequately provide the
name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.
An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.
ENTER:
s/ Leon Jordan
United States District Judge
5
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?