and we're ready to proceed with the st case which is cortez b foster and barbara and will try and give us a little time to start to consider in the telephone format you can take this option and if so we'll expect this by a particular date but it doesn't make that an unequivocal deadline and it doesn't say whether if the payment is not made by that deadline either it doesn't count at all or it counts against an escalated amount that would have run by that date because the payment wasn't on time  or it will be good enough and it will be accepted as in full satisfaction of the debt nothing of that sort is specified it's just you're on our way that can be said is here's the amount but note that it's increasing and you won't necessarily settle the debt if you send a check for that amount another thing you can do is say here's the amount that you have to pay and if you pay that amount by this date then you're done but this letter doesn't necessarily or maybe you can explain to me how it does tell the recipient  i'm quoting we hold the f t c p a requires debt collectors when they notify customers of their account balance to disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees if i take it as part of your argument that it's just not really a corrective court is whatever issue we were having resolved yes i noticed some sound coming from one of the lines so i knew that line which is not a person that's arguing for this case ok all right i think we can pick up where we where we left off pending the pending question was does those this letter state the account balance and the answer is it does right in the upper right hand corner so if it states the account  settlement payment its property but its property late what would happen in that context object so back those to the argument that a bill in fact they really was this court was concerned with the fact that the consumer can pay the debt and then still be charged expect the amount by x date that's not in fact a deadline well it did yes because the budget doesn't have an absolute deadline and i think that the a whole lot of settlement offer of came out from this court where if you leave it open ended and you don't say that this will absolutely expire when it's not full and separate here the lot of what we all expected by the end but clearly it's not an absolute way that the least sophisticated consumer would know that if he or she missed the deadline by a week or a month or three months it would still be mar the payment is late well that nd that goes to the argument where the nd circuits that you can increase their understanding but nd circuit mandates that language so i believe we're on honor is on that issue i think what i'm doing is asking a question about what the least sophisticated consumer would understand from this letter and i asked and the least risk a consumer would know that if the  if he or she returned a payment that was the same amount but approximate date and missed the deadline that that would work and would not lead to an increase in the amount of the debt owed and would know and apparently if they returned a slightly lesser amount on the right date with that work well your hon your different hypothetical or the question is the question is what does a reasonable consumer understand from this letter and would there be some confusion about whether the amount of the debt would increase depending on how long it takes the debtor to pay that's the deal issue and you're saying that because there is a settlement offer with a deadline that's not quite a deadline that resolves the problem because the consumer would know what would happen if he or she missed the deadline and i'm wondering why you would think that the consumer would know that based on the wording of this letter situation in dealing with the concern about a consumer who would pay the debt stated in the letter believing that that would be that would be it but then feeds and can a lease would and could be could and would be assessed after the payment and that's not the case here that's not the case here because you're telling us now that that was the intent of the which of course the creditor would be perfectly legally entitled to do right  may i may i segue into what i think would resolve this because i think it's an excellent question the prior letters indicate there were twelve letters showing that you can settle and there were other deadlines in those letters and files and see what the sequence was and would know that the debt amount is actually increasing each time and the settlement offer is increasing each time but the  is devoid of any mint no we're safe harbor language indicating that interest is continuing to crew and fails to make a clear and unequivocal settlement offer that the payment by specific terms would satisfy the debt in full and that there would be nothing left over and that was the language of a villa you know the villa says clearly states that the holder of the debt will accept payment of the amount set forth in full satisfaction of the de even if that military twenty six and accepted by the creditor could cashed in put into his bank account you know with any new york court then the lal additional amounts to be assessed you think  quite possibly i mean that that is the concern that was being expressed by this court and its decision in a villa and it's an issue that's arisen more often than it should have these letters have evolved to be far more specific about just that issue you know what happens if you make one payment and miss a payment you know now they say that that will part towards the balance they also include language that indicates that that would be a full satisfaction when there's a judgment oftentimes and now indicate to the satisfaction a judgment will be filed for that express purpose this is a consumer protection statute the consumer that's being represented by if that amount is paid by the date that is set forth in the letter that that's the end the debtors obligation by i would say the debtor would have a very strong argument to that effect but the what the letter itself is silent as to the full satisfaction component but the that i mean the letter does say you're you can you can get off cheap you can get a discount on the way you do that is by least in the simplest example you pay this amount by that date or you pay this amount period and we expected by that date and if you make that deadline putting aside what happens if you missed the deadline i'm having  understanding why it would not be clear to the consumer that that's the end of it would it would certainly be a very good argument that could be rendered but the absence of any language that indicates that it is in fact a full satisfaction the you are now finished you've made your payment and you're done and this creditor won't if it's just this is how much you owe but in fact that's not true really because that may be the amount you owe as of the moment that the letter is sent but even by the time it's received it's grown by pennies and by the time somebody pays that amount it may grow even more so i that's one situation but what the safe harbor and of the old was was if you say we'll take this amount that's a different scenario and here at least in the simplest of the options and the others may get more complicated and maybe there's some complications about what happens if you missed the deadline but i i would have read this and not applying any particular legal knowledge i just read it as english saying oh they're saying i can pay this much and that's that's a settlement no you know whether or not whatever a court might do or whatever the legal possibilities might be i would read this as not not something not worried about courts it would seem like i'm being told pay this and that that's the settlement what am i missing about how that's worded i think just simply the language that was when and no specific language was required by villa but the court's holding was due to the water you don't need it to say interest was occurring in some fashion or clearly state clearly being in the decision itself that the acceptance of the payment will be full satisfaction of the debt and you just don't see the light which any kind about full satisfaction ok you can infer it and you know the defendant in this case felt necessary to submit an affidavit to supplement a letter explaining what the creditor would do if they received that payment but the consumer in receipt of this water wouldn't have the benefit of that affidavit they he's arguing that offered don't think that was the full satisfaction component yet in the decision of the district court no one on page six district court said the court however two just to be clear mr earlier you're arguing that this court gave summary judgment is that correct understanding that in favor of the plaintiff in liability here correct and you're arguing that  district court should have granted summary judgment for you correct or a minimum and what it was the fact was clearly number judgment could be granted on this letter because it complies with and recognized by the district court you're not required to state that payment would satisfy the death toll as it would run afoul of terror so i think all corners a buttoned up pretty clearly and i respect stuck in letters and further explain when you see the f t c p s a i tell my clients it's a barrel statute say is less than possible deep but short and sweet stay out of trouble so more issues that you and more advice that you're trying to make the more litigation you're going to create