closure to a very important issue facing consumers in terms of how much to give meaningful disclosure as to how much is the debt that they owe where it is accruing interest and or other charges there are i would say about five cases from the eastern district of new york that hold according to carlin that additional  collection industry has has appealed the decision this decision and two other decisions which have already been orally argued before this court so we feel that the second circuit gave further clarification in its holding in taylor versus financial which is set forth on page twenty five of our initial brief if i could have permission to read in carlin we explain that a collection notice notice that it doesn't say it there's no qualification it's a categorical statement of any collection notice fails to satisfy sex and sixty ninety two g if it omits information allowing the least sophisticated consumer to determine the minimum amount she owes at the time of the notice what she will need to pay to resolve the debt at any given moment in the future and an explanation of any fees and interest that will cause the balance to increase and you explain what that actually would mean that is to say that sounds like as if you take that literally that what the notice has to say is here's what you wrote today here are the interest and fees that are going to accrue and here's a chart if you pay tomorrow it will be this much if you pay the next day it will be this much if you pay the next day it will be this much if you pay the next day it will be that much indefinitely into the future is that what you're suggesting no i'm suggesting i'm suggesting really what what carlin said so that's that's what it says i thought that's what i thought you were asking for so tell me what exactly the notice is posed as i believe your honor that i think it will be sufficient to say what footnote three sets forth in carlin citing jones versus midland where it states this amount consists of a principle of  balance as of the date of the letter but that is what that is what this person got right it was this i don't think i did maybe i'm mistaken but i did not think you were arguing that the letter misstated the amount that was due as of the date of the letter that is that is a good start well as i might want to know it is that accurate first of all am i right that you are not saying that the amount stated in the letter was inaccurate as of the date it was sent i think that's a simple question is that what you are use are you contesting whether the amount stated was accurate as of the date it was sent i think it was accurate as of the date yes it was sent ok yes so then that isn't the question that i think judge reggie and i were both pursuing is what else needs to be said to me talk about it i'm not sure why it would need to be broken down into this was the principle this is the accrued interest etc i'm not sure how helpful that is but i thought you were also suggesting that the letter would have to give an account of what would be due at any given da in the future when the letter when the check might be written by the consumer when it might be received back by the creditor at the date that it was perhaps received in the mail a few days after the date as of which it was accurate so what what has to be said about the future what has to be said about the future is what i've set forth from footnote three and carlene and in addition tell me exactly what it i'm just trying to understand what you're asking for i just tell me exactly what the letter is supposed to say it should say that this it should break down as of the date of the letter that this is the this is the amount this is the principal amount this is the amount of accrued interest and fees and if there are other charges other charges there can be a box as many collection white why does that convey and what you've said so far it seems to me doesn't convey any useful information to me as the debtor because i already know i have to pay whatever six hundred dollars it might be interesting to me to say that was a principal amount of twelve hundred dollars plus this much interest in this much accrued interest but that doesn't give me any help in knowing what i owe a as of the date of the letter in total because i'm interested in the total and so far you haven't told me anything about what needs to be said about the future which i thought was the whole point of this yes absolutely so that so that in the future it should state that this balance will continue to work crew interest after what at a rate of whatever percentage it is and if there's going to be late fees then it should set forth late fees will be every thirty days or in that fashion so now the but the least consistent hated consumer it seems to me is put by that in some position where they're going to have to make some kind of calculation right a mathematical calculation of accrued interest i mean wouldn't it be better if you got like exactly how much interest is going to accru tomorrow and the next day and the next day i think that i don't know what has if it has to be broken down day by day but i think least by week month by month perhaps perhaps month by month or perhaps isn't that helpful to the de collection industry i'm trying to figure out some way of conveying what's going to be a good letter because otherwise people are going to be continually sued on that if they give an interest rate the next person standing at the podium in your shoes is going to be arguing that that's not really very good because if you say it's compound interest at a rate of twenty nine percent annually how is the least sophisticated consumer supposed to know what they would need to pay if they're paying three days after the initial letter with the amount that was then due and owing i think that carlin really is adopted the the credit card standard and when you and when your hon or mentions the least sophisticated consumer we are talking about consumers who have most of the time credit card debt and also my own life which they have not paid in part because they did not understand otherwise they wouldn't be in this position these are people i mean if you talk to the least sophisticated consumer in real life you will hear things like oh i'm in pretty good shape i still have twenty thousand dollars in the bank meaning they still have twenty thousand dollars in credit you're talking to people who don't pay off their balances because they don't really understand that if they only pay the amount that ask for the bill each month they're going to wind up deeper and deeper in debt i'm not persuaded that giving people a set of percentages about the future is really any help to anybody at all so what i'm concerned about is if we're trying to figure out what would be a reasonable letter are we asking are we saying that these owe a lot of money and penalties and class actions and so on because they didn't give essentially useless information to the consumer furthermore that if we do require what you're suggesting that in the next case it's going to be argued that that's not really enough and that there's a bigger and better disclosure that would be like a three page letter with a chart saying pay by this day you pay this amount paid by that you pay that amount but i i believe that if the second circuit just like the second circuit came out with some type of explain it to every language in a villa which is good for sixty ninety two well way but in the second circuit to me though that that just is exactly the problem we tried to set out something in a vehicle and here you are saying no that's not really a safe harbor because it doesn't satisfy all the difference that terry requirements now you're telling me create another safe harbor and that might work for you but i'm not sure it's going to work for success one is coming and suing people again now because the difference is is because we on plaintiffs side on the debtors side have accepted that this is a sufficient is good language for sixty ninety two for subsequent letter is to let the debtor know that there is or why isn't your problem completely solved by the fact that this letter and every letter from collection agencies has a telephone number you call the telephone number and they'll tell you how much you owe today in fact the universal experience is that the telephone person the other end of the telephone will bargain with you and allow you to pay half or two thirds or ten percent or ten percent a month whatever in other words you you're you're straining at that and that you were making a huge issue of something which is resolved very easily by making a phone call your honor in the seventh circuit case of miller versus mccallum which of course the second circuit doesn't have to follow the seven circuit looked upon forcing a debtor to have to call the collection agency lossing the debtor to the easier to call the collection agency than it is to sit with you or with your calculator and figure out what three point two five percent compounded per quarter is going to amount to than dialing ten numbers the seven circle is not impressed with having my i mean they were in chicago i understand your honor i understand as i said that this court is not but but you know think when you talk about we on the plaintiff's side i'm not sure whether you had a convention and made a decision that what you're proposing today is going to satisfy everybody but i suspect not because there's another case that's been argued recently where it was argued that the seventh circuit which is sort of what we followed in a villa has no right to set a safe harbor language at all there's no such thing as they per barrel language because that's amending the statute so other people are out there making arguments that go quite beyond what you're making so where does it stop how do we ever get to a point where we've said look if you say this much that's good enough why don't we stick to what we've said in the past on that iran has raised a good point concerning how far attorney it will go but i don't think it's an extension of the statute and i think that the industry has since miller and then since a vila has accepted that for sixteen in the second circuit for sixty ninety two it's not that the court has to now go and set another safe harbor language the court set it forth in carlin the court made it clear that when a collection letter accrues interest or other charges the the debtor has to be told in a meaningful fashion not just there's a possibility of further charges an interesting call this number is what i wanted to see before was that many debtors i'm sorry many debt collectors and collection representatives  not so nice and that's why we have cases also concerning conversations and what we actually hello was that it was misleading to say you would go a certain amount by a particular date in the  future when that amount was really an estimate and was not necessarily strictly accurate and that was the problem that was being addressed there it was not a case in which the letter had simply said here is what the current amount of the debt is it will continue to grow in the future please call such and such number if you have any questions it was not that kind of letter at all it was a letter that the court found to be misleading about what was going to happen in the future and one of my concerns is the more information collector tries to put into the letter the greater the risk that something is going to turn out to be not quite accurate suppose they did put in a big it had better be to the penny exactly correct as to each day because if it goes wrong then there's going to be a lawsuit saying it's inaccurate i'm just having trouble understanding why it's not why the the no deal is not enough because a villa talks about sixty ninety two e and carlin discussed the sixty ninety two g and why it takes plain to me why the difference that makes a difference in the  kind of information that the consumer should be given because sixty ninety two involves deception so when any subsequent letter the debtor should know that there is that there is a possible accrual of interest or other charges sixty ninety two g from the statute discusses amount of the debt which should be given in a meaningful fashion i but you have agreed that the amount of the debt here as stated on the date the letter was sent is accurate that is in sharp contrast to carlin where the information the debtor was given as to what was o was in a future estimate that was possibly not correct so the debtor here is given correct information as to the debt as of the date of the letter then it's told it can increase based on interest  fees and then it's given a phone number that it can call and and i i'm not sure i think what we're struggling with is what more do you want that the editor told that is going to be meaningful i think your honor that i've i think as i said johnson versus midland quoted in carlin gives a nice suggestion and in addition i believe that  what might be done but it doesn't necessarily indicate what has to be done me carlon does reaffirm the safe harbor language of avila it says  saying is the required disclosure that must be made and was not made here i think that carlin went went beyond the viola because as taylor state is i read before taylor i think is a wow well the consumer lost in taylor taylor gave a beautiful clarification there's a as i stated before in carlin we explained that a collection notice it doesn't say in carlin we explained that a collection notice concerning a payoff statement fails to satisfy sixty ninety two g my producer started with taylor prompting judge lynch's question about whether it's language taken literally requires it day by day chart of the amount owed fin item me this was judged ross's point when she said that taking in isolation it suggest of disclosure and she thought that was an apt in light of the viola and the safe harbor language that carlin didn't depart from so it's the suggestion is that what you are what you're asking  stick with taylor since you came back to taylor and said that taylor's language is what is required and we started out by asking you how is that anything than a dated by gay chart forever i'm sorry i don't i guess how you're quoting the language in taylor that says that it has to be information that allows the consumer to determine the minimum out she owes at the time of notice what she will need to pay to resolve the debt at any given moment in the future and that that's what's problematic here that's what the second circuit held in carlin which was i clarified in so i'm just quoting from what the the judgment you're appealing says you can't read that language in isolation and be the reason for that is that it basically obliterates the safe harbor that is correct i've been specially appointed to do the argument thank you yes so i think this case contrary to what my adversary has said this is not a case about sweeping changes to notices in accordance with the f t c i mean if anything this reflects plaintiff's counsel in the plaintiff's bar trying to put a square peg in a round hole taking what i think is a pretty aggressive stance in that a veal is no longer a good law in this circuit based on what carlin has said and what taylor has said including what opposing counsel has quoted from taylor i mean the fact of the matter and i  his decision in the lower court perfectly distinguishes why carlin and taylor do not obliterated or abrogate what was decided in a villa i think judge lynch perfectly who was on the panel in villa tried their best to give guidance to the industry on how best to deal with a scenario where there is a dynamic debt particularly with accrued interest and the safe harbor language has served the industry well over that time i think in particular the situation in carl and really the industry better and actually very little cost is something i don't think we can impose which would be a letter that said here's the amount that's due today if you pay that any time by the end of this month you're done i think of it said that you wouldn't have any problems at all in terms of trying to predict the future and the problem is trying to collect each little nickel that you know you're not going to get anyway because you know you're prepared when the person does call over what with the settlement would be and if that happened then there wouldn't be any of these problems is trying to keep the debt dynamic and i don't think that means that you have to say everything else is forgiven if the you know there's a terminus if you pay by this date this  amount will end i think that would actually be the most helpful thing to the least the consumer but that's free advice and it's worth exactly what you paid for it but i don't think that's anything the report could impose because that would be affecting the substance of what's happening not the disclosure well and i think carlin does highlight that there are different scenarios in that case there was a payoff statement and that's post lawsuit a lawsuit was filed a payoff statement was sent to the debtor after the lawsuit was filed that is not your typical kind of you know dunning notice for lack of a better description sent to a debtor just advising them what amount is owed as of the date of the letter and again in my ever so he keeps trying to create a new standard separate from the deal and trying to create karlin the new standard of the circuit but again these these notices are not in a black box i think as your honor pointed out there's a phone number there's correspondence and address the debtor is always available to pick up the phone or contact who sent the letter and to figure out what amount today as of that phone call they would pay and if that satisfies the dead in its entirety there are some things that you just can't do in terms of predicting the future and just to put a finer point on the on the fact that karlan and taylor are are all decisions issued by different panels of this court i mean  not mutually exclusive the one provision sixty ninety two e deals with false misleading statements that is read in conjunction with sixty to ninety two g so a statement that has to comply with sixty to ninety two g also has to comply with sixty to ninety two e so that when you state the amount of the debt it also cannot be false and misleading and that's that's been the case on the circuit you know since avila so there is no real distinction of merit between those two provisions and in fact the footnote footnote three to carlin kind of i think dredges you were you were hinting at is no three expressly says vila references a basically harkens back to the villa had two proposals for safe harbor there was the one that you know that's an issue in this case which is there's  accrued interest in fees that will continue to accrue which will change the amount due over time but there's also the more detailed safe harbor that of the low spoke about in that case and that's what's reference in footnote three and that's where carlin essentially  saying a deal is still good law you know reminding everyone we did prefer this other safe harbor language in that we mention individual but again it's just a suggestion which i think just further  that carlin was not here to change what the the standard in a veto was and i think that makes that footnote actually crystallizes the point the other thing i'll just say and again this is judge ross  lower court had a very thorough well reasoned decision she distinguished why carlin was not a political here why taylor did not change what was decided in a vila and i think it should be affirmed the only last point i'll make unless there's further question just counsel suggest that were decided were that the amount in dispute or the amount due i should say was literally correct in the letter that that was not a finding of judge ross the finding in judd ross was dealing with the allegations in the complaint which all related to whether the interest and statements about accruing interest and fees were stated correctly and not in a misleading way at no point was judge ross opining on whether the amount in the letter itself as far as it went the statement that interest and fees would continue to accrue is also accurate as far as it goes the argument is that it's insufficient because he wants more detail about exactly what will accrue on exactly what schedule and he'll have a chance if i mis understand correct me certainly and that was my understanding well your honor except the there was argument in the reply brief at the backend about whether drops also make factual findings and that is a basis for overturning her decision i think that there is no basis to overturn a decision on in that regard because she didn't make any factual findings she was only relying on the allegations of the plate which had nothing to do with the literal correctness of the my adversary would say that there is no distinction between sixty ninety two g and sixty ninety two and i think that that set forth could you explain the things and exactly what exactly makes a statement that passes under the ones that you're not as under the other what language in the statute are you relying on the sixteen ninety two has a list of various deceptions sixty nine to ten is is probably general and six nine to be general concerning misrepresentations and the septuagint sixty ninety two g is words and six nine two applies to any communication with a debtor sixty ninety two g only applies to the initial written communication with the debtor so we're only asking that the the carlin standard which is would say like really what set forth in any credit card statement we're not we're we're not saying that the collection agency should give less detail than a credit card company does we're saying and when your honor suggested  setting forth an amount in the future i think judge for your sting suggested that in cold enough i don't remember the name of the defendant but a number of years ago i believe she suggested that so we found that since carlin especially in the student loan areas is what i'm having a problem with so sixty ninety two g is different because it's about the initial communication and so it's that's what needs to be stated but what needs to be stated that you're relying on is the amount of the debt so how could something that is misleading as to the amount of the debt and therefore violate g not also violate the which says you can't mislead and what was that issue there was precisely the amount of the debt that's why would the two well have different standards sixteen an initial letter if it didn't set forth that the amount of the debt in a meaningful fashion would violate sixty ninety two g and c and sixty ninety two but there were more obligations concerning an initial communication in order to fulfill the requirements of sixty ninety two g and we've found that since carlin we've seen letters nationwide that especially one example is the student loan industry that collection agencies when they're collecting on a student loan they will set forth information as t attorneys fees and interesting costs and we feel that while yes the standard is the least sophisticated consumer but we are we are talking about consumers who have received credit card debt and clear and this court said inclement versus jackson that the statute protects the gullible as well as the shrewd so everyone should have meaningful disclosure in  the nish of communication as to how much is owed and to be able to determine how much in the future thank you both will reserve decision