Opinion ID: 198274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Prior to 1990, Brady's then wife leased an apartment and failed to pay $470 in rent. Brady never signed the lease in question but was named in the lease as a tenant. In August 1990, the landlord referred the Brady account to defendants for collection of the unpaid rent. On September 4, 1990, defendants initiated the collection process by sending Brady a letter requesting payment of the debt. On September 13, Brady phoned Clark and explained that he had never signed the lease in question, that his ex-wife alone had signed the lease, and that therefore he had no obligation to pay the unpaid rent. Clark told Brady to submit a written letter to dispute the debt. Brady never put the dispute in writing. Over the next few months, defendants sent Brady two more dunning letters and made two phone calls to him, none of which drew a response. In August 1991, CRC reported Brady's alleged debt to various credit reporting agencies without also reporting Brady's dispute. Five years later, in February 1996, Brady applied for a mortgage to purchase a home. The mortgage company hired a credit agency, First American Credit Services (First American), to check Brady's credit history. Upon learning of Brady's bad credit report, the credit agency called defendants to inquire about the unpaid debt. As it had done in 1991, CRC again reported the unpaid rent as Brady's debt without reporting its disputed status. The mortgage company subsequently advised Brady that his financing was in jeopardy because of the listing of the rent as an outstanding debt on his credit report. Brady immediately contacted defendants and informed them, once again, that he was not liable for the unpaid rent.Defendants again refused to remove the debt from Brady's credit report. One month later, Brady's attorney contacted CRC's attorney who, in turn, advised CRC to withdraw the bad credit report. CRC promptly removed the unpaid rent from Brady's credit report. Thereafter, Brady brought this suit alleging that defendants violated the FDCPA by failing to inform First American that Brady disputed the debt. Brady also brings pendent state law claims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, 24, 50 and ch. 93A.