Opinion ID: 3175715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Continued Communication with a Represented

Text: Consumer. The FDCPA § 1692c(a)(2) states that a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer, in connection with the collection of any debt, if the debt collector knows that the consumer is represented by counsel. It further requires a debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, with limited exceptions not applicable here, once a consumer has notified the debt collector that the consumer refuses to pay a debt. § 1692c(c). 4 No. 15-1231 Bravo argues that since the letters were directed to Bravo– regardless of the delivery address–Midland was communicating with Bravo after Midland was notified that Bravo was represented by counsel. This Court held in Tinsley v. Integrity Financial Partners, Inc., 634 F.3d 416 (2011), “that § 1692c as a whole permits debt collectors to communicate freely with consumers’ lawyers.” Id. at 419. The Plaintiff in Tinsley had retained counsel who sent a letter to the debt collector advising it that the Plaintiff refused to pay. The correspondence also directed the debt collector to “cease all further collection activities and direct all future communication to our office.” The debt collector refrained from communicating with the Plaintiff; however, he called the lawyer with a request for payment. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed suit under the FDCPA alleging that the Act “prohibits debt collectors from contacting a debtor’s legal counsel as well as the debtor himself, once the debtor refuses to pay.” Id. at 416. In Tinsley, we asked, “Why would Congress have provided that hiring a lawyer makes it impossible for the debtor and debt collector to communicate through counsel?” We found “[t]hat would be an implausible understanding of § 1692c(a)(2).” One of the purposes of § 1692c(a)(2) is to provide a legal buffer for the consumer and “[a] debtor who does not want to be pestered by demands for payment, settlement proposals, and so on, need only tell his lawyer not to relay them.” Id. at 419. There is no case law cited that supports Bravo’s position that a letter addressed to a debtor, but sent to the debtor at an attorney’s address, is a per se violation of § 1692c(a)(2) of the No. 15-1231 5 FDCPA. We find that holding so would undermine the findings in Tinsley that a debt collector should be able to communicate freely and directly with counsel upon notification that a debtor is properly represented. Then, as occurred in this case, the attorney can review the correspondence and take any steps necessary. A consumer’s name on an envelope does not equate to communication with that consumer when it is sent in “care of” and to the address of an attorney. B. Continued Communication with Regard to the Collection of a Debt. Bravo also argues that the two letters were a continued attempt to collect a debt in violation of § 1692c(c). Bravo states that nothing in Tinsley would allow a debt collector, in the face of multiple cease collection demands, to continue its collection efforts. She goes on to argue that a debt collector may contact the attorney, but not to demand payment of the debt from the consumer. Bravo argues that this matter is distinguishable from Tinsley as the debt in Tinsley was still owed and in this matter, the debts had been discharged. Whether a debt is pending or discharged is irrelevant. A debt collector may not even be aware–until he contacts debtor’s counsel–that a debt has been resolved. “Courts do not impute to debt collectors other information that may be in creditors’ files–for example, that debt has been paid or was bogus to start with.” Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726, 729 (7th Cir. 2004). If the Court cannot impute creditors’ knowledge to a debt collector, it stands to reason that it cannot limit a debt collector’s ability to communicate with a debtor’s counsel to only those incidents where a debt is owed. 6 No. 15-1231 C. False, Deceptive, or Misleading Statements. Next Bravo argues that Midland’s letters violate the general provision of § 1692e of the FDCPA, which states that a debt collector may not use any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” Bravo contends that the letters falsely stated that Bravo stilled owed debts that had been discharged by the prior settlement. This Court has consistently held that with regard to “false, deceptive, or misleading representations” in violation of § 1692e of the FDCPA, the standard is: (1) whether the debt collector’s communication would deceive or mislead an unsophisticated, but reasonable, consumer if the consumer is not represented by counsel or (2) whether a competent attorney would be deceived, even if he is not a specialist in consumer debt law. See Zemmeckis v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., 679 F.3d 632, 635 (7th Cir. 2012); Wahl v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 556 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2009); Ruth v. Triumph, 577 F.3d 790, 799-800 (7th Cir. 2009); Evory v. RJM Acquisitions Funding, L.L.C., 505 F.3d 769, 774-775 (7th Cir. 2007); Sims v. GC Servs. L.P., 445 F.3d 959, 963 (7th Cir. 2006); Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Assocs., 330 F.3d 991, 995 (7th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff relies on Evory, et al. v. RJM Acquisitions Funding L.L.C., 505 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2007), to argue that every false statement to an attorney is a per se violation of § 1692e. That overstates Evory. The Evory court held the “competent attorney” standard applies regardless of whether a statement is false, misleading or deceptive. Id. at 775. No. 15-1231 7 This case involves alleged false representations to a debtor’s attorney. Therefore, the standard is whether a competent attorney, even if he is not a specialist in consumer debt law, would be deceived by two letters requesting payment for debts resolved in a settlement. On the facts before us, we believe a competent attorney would be able to determine whether his client continued to owe a debt after it was settled in full and would therefore not be deceived by the two letters. D. Violations of § 1692e(5) of the FDCPA. Lastly, Bravo argued that the letters violate §1692e(5) of the FDCPA. She alleges that the letters contained threats of actions that Midland was not legally able to take. The first threat was demanding payment of debts eliminated by settlement. The second threat was the statement, “[T]his account may still be reported on your credit report as unpaid.” These arguments were not brought at the district level, and arguments not raised to the district court are waived on appeal. See Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012); Brown v. Auto. Components Holding, LLC, 622 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2010); Robyns v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 F.3d 1231, 1238 (7th Cir. 1997).