Opinion ID: 793621
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was IFS's False Representation In Connection With the Collection of a Debt?

Text: 26 Though IFS, by the terms of the contract, made a false representation, that representation was made to EFT, not to Volden. Volden argues that the language of section 1692e does not require that a false representation be made to the consumer. He argues that the in connection with language in the section includes false representation made to others while in the process of collecting a debt. Volden directs us to only one district court case in support of his argument. Notwithstanding this being relatively scant support, even the case provided is distinguishable. See Van Westrienen v. Americontinental Collection Corp., 94 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1107-08 (D.Or.2000). 27 In Van Westrienen, the district court held that under section 1692e, the consumer debtor does not have to be the actual recipient of the false statement in order to press a claim. All that is needed is that a debt collector use a misrepresentation `in connection with the collection of any debt.' Id. (citation omitted). In that case, a debt collector maintained misleading information on its website, and in a collection letter referred the plaintiff to the website. There was conflicting testimony about whether the plaintiff actually viewed the site, but the plaintiff argued it did not matter since the information on the site was misleading, and the debt collector referred the plaintiff to the site in its collection letter. The court agreed, stating [d]efendants are debt collectors who used the misrepresentations in the website `in connection' with collecting the debt from plaintiffs by inviting them to view the website. Id. at 1108. Though viewed in a vacuum the district court's statement seems to broaden the scope of misleading representations beyond the debtor, the context involves a debt collector directing a debtor to misleading information. 28 We have found only one other case, again from the same court that issued Van Westrienen, to assert a similarly broad sentiment. In Mathis v. Omnium Worldwide, No. Civ. 04-1614-AA, 2005 WL 3159663 (D.Or. Nov.27, 2005), plaintiff brought suit against a debt collector who persisted in contacting her about her deceased father's debts. The court rejected the debt collector's argument that plaintiff could not bring suit under the FDCPA because she was not the consumer who owed the debt. Citing section 1692e, the court stated that the statutory language does not require the prohibited conduct to be directed only at the consumer to be actionable. Id. at . Though this statement by itself might support Volden's argument, the thrust of Mathis was to clarify that the statutory language of the FDCPA does not limit causes of actions to those brought by a `consumer,' so long as the alleged conduct was directed at the plaintiff.  Id. (emphasis added). 29 We do not find Volden's argument persuasive. In the instant case, IFS made its false representation to EFT, and EFT is not the plaintiff. No false representation was made directly to Volden by IFS's submission of the collection fees to EFT. The weight of authority applying section 1692e does so in the context of a debt collector making a false, deceptive, or misleading representation to the plaintiff. Volden has not shown that section 1692e contemplates liability for the kind of representation IFS made to EFT. We find that such actions do not fall within the general application of the section. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. 30 The FDCPA is designed to protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices such as the use or threat of violence, obscene language, publication of shame lists, and harassing telephone calls. Peters, 277 F.3d at 1054. Volden admits that his only actual damages arise from insufficient fund fees assessed by his own credit union when IFS's collection fees were presented for payment. But that is between him and his credit union, no doubt a condition of the contract governing his account. Volden simply reaped the consequences of writing bad checks. He issued them having notice that a collection fee would be assessed. Per Regulation E, that notice authorized IFS to collect the fee electronically from Volden's account. Collection of that fee did not violate the FDCPA. That IFS contracted with EFT to follow additional rules does not mean that IFS's responsibilities to Volden under the FDCPA were somehow enhanced. 31