two g and b because it demands payment now or alternatively a payment arrangement it threatens to repeatedly states you can avoid paying costs and attorney's fees resulting from a lawsuit  being this obligation now or making a suitable payment arrangement it states that we have been instructed to commence litigation against you it lists the onerous consequences of a judgment and it warns in all caps that there may be no further notice or demand in writing from this office prior to the prior to under this court's subpoena decision it must contain transitional language explaining the relationship between the right that this letter is not a demand for immediate payment but immediate and now are synonyms this is a demand for immediate payment and the transitional language was required  required payment within seven dollars days rather than now makes this letter worse now is more urgent than you have seven days that at least gives the consumer one week period in which to consider whether they should request validation or commence suit or order to hear an immediate decision is required therefore the relationship had to be explained it was not question about the standard enrollment contract being assigned as i understand it your client denies agreeing to those terms but isn't it the case that both parties presumably have access to a copy of the actual signed agreement whatever the terms might be under which your client's children attended the school so i having a little trouble understanding why we being asked to speculate as to what the agreement provided when it seems that either side could have produced a verifiable copy of the pla content that there is no written agreement he came to the school they did that he was able to pay three thousand nine hundred hours the school agreed he handed over the three thousand nine hundred dollars he paid the agreed amount in full right up front his children attended for the rest of the year under payment is made immediately there is no need for a contract to specify how payments are going to be made or what remedies the school as in the amount that it remains to be paid isn't paid absolutely no need for genuineness completeness or authenticity in determination of their effect doesn't require resolution of factual issues none of those three requirements is met here we say in the complaint there is no writing document was ever agreed to in any manner at all it says it's to be accepted by signature there is no signature it says that the means of payment is to be filled the it's not  agreement payment arrangement which we find suitable they had to explain the relationship as required and park with a subpoena they did not do so unless your honour's have some further questions those sixteen of your complaint partner seventeen you do say there's no writing authorizing attorneys fees but in sixteen dollars used a plant contracted for a lower amount than the nominal list price and paid it but what you're saying is that you know you wish you were contracted there there was about the manning immediate payment or requesting payment so just because it says has worked now doesn't necessarily mean that you know it's a demand it could be if you say you can avoid by paying now i'm not sure that i agree with you that this necessar demand but i thought your overshadowing claim was related to the lack of transitional language with regard to if you do dispute that that that the collection efforts will be suspended until the debt is validated i thought that was the core  merely presenting the debtor with the option of payment in addition to the option to to dispute or validate the debt does not violate the f t c p a the letter contains no threat and no language to it that the firm intended to take legal action within the thirty day validation period in fact it specifically says and les you contact this office within thirty days to dispute the validity of this that i will assume the debt is valid valid which indicates no further action would be taken during that thirty day period it then goes on to specifically say that the validation period runs from thirty days from receipt of the letter and the plaintiff concedes in their in their brief that this section of the validation is appropriately recited and there is no issue with it when read a whole the letter provided the plaintiff with three options pay the debt now pay the debt at some point in the future under a payment plan or validate or contest a day that within thirty dollars days of receiving the letter the street options are neither confusing or nor contradictory when read together they do not amount to an f t c p a violation and they are consistent with this court's precedent in jacobson and the lower court appropriately dismisse client turning now to the to the claim under one thousand six hundred and ninety two dollars there is nothing misleading in the statement in the letter that says you may be responsible for paying the attorney fees the contract only the amount that was do under the contract the allegation now that the contract is not valid is raised for the st time on appeal the plaintiff simply said that the  contract was contrary to the allegation in the complaint and that he had contract it for a lesser amount and i am mrs judge katzman i have a few questions if i might ask  honor we agree to that now and you can help me understand this my problem is is really with the use of the words now the letter of caution  ms rashi that he could and i quote avoid paying the costs and attorney's fees resulting from a lawsuit by paying his obligation now or making a suitable payment arrangement and the letter  further says and in caps there may be no further notice or demand in writing from this office prior to the filing suit so judge from the perspective of the  would be left uncertain whether she had to or he had to pay to dispute disputed on withhold payment while disputing use of the word in all caps there is a sentence that says unless you contact this office within thirty days to dispute the validity of the debt i will assume the debt is valid valid in you do not intend to resolve the matter voluntarily that implicitly is a statement that no action will be taken within that thirty day period number one and number two i think you have to go back in to the concept that this court has stated before that you have to read the letter in its entirety  one can't pick and choose sentences and pull them out and suggest that they are confusing or contradictory when the letter is read as a whole you know the next sentence after the one you cited in the letter has to be read in its entirety and when it is done so i think the lower court was correct that that there is no overshadowing and no confusion even to you know the if you would produce a signed contract that said that ms rauch had to pay attorney's fees and presumably that would clearly support this miss on the fees claim but you didn't you just offered and correct me if i'm wrong you just offered an unsigned writing as rochon denies agreeing to how can we rely on that dismissed the complainant the pleading stage because i think the issue is you know not whether the misrati children paid the tuition amount reflected in the contract but in the fact that the contract calls for the ability to collect attorney's fees and an action where to collect on the debt the plaintiff can concede that if the contract is valid that then they may be liable for attorney's fees so i think the issue misleading and i don't think that's what the f t c p a requires it is not misleading to say that fees may be may be owed in the key word there is may when it is possible  that that they would be owed and the plaintiff in this instance concedes that it is possible that they would be ok thank you that concludes my questioning judges  we gave the transitional language that would that that collector should should use the you know we proposed language and that language makes clear that collection efforts will be suspended information to you so there's no language of that type that talks about the suspension that any activity a lawsuit or any effort to collect will be suspended during that thirty day that nothing's going to happen during that thirty day period and i'm not sure where they would get that from i think you get that from the language prior to the all caps language that was w cited which is and let you contact this office within thirty days to dispute the ability of the debt we will i will assume the debt is valid and you did not intend to resolve the matter voluntarily i think the language  this letter but not that it was not just mean you're trying to settle the matter during the thirty day period understanding about holding off suit you could still try to resolve the matter voluntarily but still files a lawsuit at the same time right i don't know what i'm not the least in jacobson in jacobson the court approved you know simply to alternatives here there's three alternatives there is you can pay it you can work out a payment arrangement or you can contest or request the lividity of the debt in jacobson this is this court approved two of those options so i think this letter is consistent with the court's prior precedent and just make sure we're on the same page here you would agree that twenty to the contract that you would agree that if in fact under the law there was no basis on the contractual language that to that the standard would be if there was no possible bases like recover attorney's fees that it would be inappropriate and have b c p a violation to state and that they may be recovered and here the only possibility would be if was in the contract because there's no legal basis it would be it would be simply it was part of the contract right yes if it was part of the agreement between the parties that's correct so here they're just going back into what just happens asking about here they are displayed clearly of the contract but your honor if you back up to paragraph sixteen of the complaint they say they contract it for a lower amount than the nominal list price right where nominal list price comes our position that was the contract even though the printed date is shown in the upper right corner which is subsequent to the letter is where is the signed contract is a contract that is the basis for the claim they're disputing it as a motion to dismiss where we have decided on a motion to dismiss any case well your honor i think that the contract here again the  allegations that are raised on the appeal some of the argument you've just heard is being raised for the st time the st time there's ever an allegation that this was an oral contract and not a written contract was this morning when mr adelman is that it doesn't matter i didn't even if they were even if they were saying with a written contract they're still saying it's not the contract that you're attaching and they're used to they did raise this below but on page twelve their opposition to your motion they say the complaint flatly alleges that there is no contract providing for the recovery attorneys fees and they cite their complaint so they clearly raise this issue they're saying our contract whether it's all writing it doesn't matter just saying it doesn't have the provision that you're saying that's that's my point and i i think our point goes back to the standard as to whether this is misleading a misleading statement is whether there is no possibility for the issue to come to pass clearly given this form contract it is possible to recover attorney fees so therefore the statement in the letter is not misleading i think be consistent with that and that's what the court's prior precedents are as it is that there can't be there has to be essentially an impossibility of recovery and the plaintiff he pair page thirty four their brief that in the event that this contract is if determined to be valid they would owe the attorney see so clearly what the statement in the letter can't be deemed to be misleading all right thank you thank you judge ca respect to the overshadowing issue in any overshadowing the prescribed language is likely to be present in the letter the d in addition the letter demands action either now or within thirty days if you letter under the decisions if the letter to millions payment less than thirty dollars days were threatened suit in less than thirty days refer to d attorney's fees without committing a violation is by seeing if you are bound to up signed a contract providing for attorneys who may be held liable or simply have the statement the court may award ernie's who's against you thank you very much thank you thank thanks to the post both parties and the court will reserve decision