Carrasquillo v. Anthony Reginald Didonato

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 6/15/11. (lsal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION

REYNALDO CARRASQUILLO,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:10BCVB227

Plaintiff,

ANTHONY REGINALD DIDONATO,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER came before the Court on a bench trial on March 30, 2011, with
Plaintiff Reynaldo Carrasquillo and Defendant Anthony Reginald Didonato present. The
Plaintiff was represented by counsel, and the Defendant proceeded pro se. The Court,
having considered the evidence below and the entire record herein, makes the Finding of
Facts and Conclusions of Law that follow and renders a verdict for the Defendant.
I. EVIDENCE
A. Evidence Presented by the Plaintiff
Carrasquillo incurred a debt with Town Center Chiropractic for chiropractic services
and was delinquent in paying his bill. Eventually, the debt was referred to Rapid Recovery
Credit and Collections (“Rapid Recovery”). The Defendant Anthony Didonato is a principal
of Rapid Recovery and acted on its behalf.
Rapid Recovery sent a letter dated January 19, 2009, to the Plaintiff in an attempt to
collect the outstanding debt. The Plaintiff responded to the collection letter by calling the
collection agency. He spoke with the Defendant and after some discussion, a payment

1

arrangement was established. According to the Plaintiff, the arrangement was that he
would make a $100.00 payment once per month (around the twentieth of the month) and
all payments were to be credited to his account. His sister was not involved.
The Plaintiff authorized the first payment via his debit card. Then the Plaintiff told
the Defendant that he would make payments through his online bill‐pay system. The
second payment was made through the online bill‐pay system. An authorized debit card
payment of $100.00 was taken two weeks later. The Plaintiff complained to his bank about
the debit card payment, and the bank temporarily stopped the transaction. After the bank
investigated, however, the transaction cleared and the debit payment was made. The
Plaintiff made several additional payments through the online bill‐pay system.
At some point, the Plaintiff noticed funds going from his account to Rapid Recovery
through check payments he did not authorize. The checks appearing in Plaintiff’s Exhibits
9, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are alleged to be unauthorized. These checks total $240.00.
B. Evidence Presented by the Defendant
Carrasquillo was delinquent in his payments to Town Center Chiropractic, and his
debt was turned over to collection agency Rapid Recovery Credit and Collections. Rapid
Recovery sent five letters to Carrasquillo seeking to collect the debt. On February 13, 2009,
the Plaintiff called Rapid Recovery and discussed the matter with the Defendant. A
payment plan was established whereby the Plaintiff would pay $100.00 every two weeks.
Of that $100.00 payment, $50.00 would go the Plaintiff’s account, and $50.00 would go to
an account belonging to his sister Sandra.
The Plaintiff gave the Defendant his debit card information with guidance not to use
it until February 17, 2009. Didonato ran that payment, which cleared, and credited the

2

Carrasquillo’s account $100.00. The Defendant ran the card two weeks later, on March 1,
2009, but the card was declined. The Plaintiff sent a check for $100.00, which was credited
on March 18, 2009.
Two weeks later, the Defendant ran the debit card, and it went through for $100.00.
The Plaintiff, however, contacted the bank, which put a hold on the funds. The bank
investigated and determined that the claim was legitimate based on an established
payment plan. The bank charged the $100.00 to the Plaintiff’s account. Two weeks later,
Defendant tried to run the debit card again, but it was declined. Later, the Plaintiff gave the
Defendant information for his Riggs National Banks checking account so that the Defendant
could run checks. The Defendant had a check created and deposited it into the account.
Carrasquillo had difficulty making subsequent payments, so in October the
agreed‐upon payment amount went from $100.00 to $50.00. On November 2, 2009, he
called Didonato and said he could only make $20.00 payments. That amount later
decreased to $10.00.
Collection efforts were active over 18 months, during which time Carrasquillo made
12 of the 36 payments that he was supposed to make. The 12 payments were credited to
either Carrasquillo’s account or his sister’s account.
Lawsuits were filed against the Plaintiff and his sister on March 21, 2011.
II. FINDING OF FACT
Plaintiff Carrasquillo has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
either Rapid Recovery or Defendant Didonato took money out of his account without his
permission to satisfy the outstanding debt.

3

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Unfair or Unconscionable Means
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). See 15 U.S.C. §
1692f. The FDCPA specifically prohibits “[t]he collection of any amount . . . unless such
amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.”
Id. § 1692f(1).
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the Defendant’s collection of
funds was not expressly authorized by their agreed‐upon payment plan. The Court
concludes that because of this failure of proof, the Plaintiff has not met the legal
requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).
B. Abuse of a Consumer
The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant engaged in abusive debt collection by
withdrawing money from his account without consent in violation of the FDCPA. The
FDCPA provides that “[a] debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural
consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the
collection of a debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692d.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the Defendant harassed,
oppressed, or abused him by withdrawing money from his bank account without consent.
The Court concludes that because of this failure of proof, the Plaintiff has not met the legal
requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d.

4

C. False Representations or Deceptive Means
Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used false representations and
deceptive means to collect a debt by withdrawing money from his account without consent
in violation of the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The FDCPA specifically prohibits “[t]he use
of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or
to obtain information concerning a consumer.” Id. § 1692e(10).
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the Defendant made false
representations or used deceptive means to collect his debt. The Court concludes that
because of this failure of proof, the Plaintiff has not met the legal requirements of 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692e.
IV. VERDICT
Having made this Finding of Fact and these Conclusions of Law, the Court renders a
verdict for the Defendant.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to the pro se Defendant and
to all counsel of record.
An appropriate Judgment and Order shall issue.

/s/
James R. Spencer
Chief United States District Judge

ENTERED this 15th day of June 2011.

5