Opinion ID: 781045
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The W & A Collection Letter

Text: 67 Finally, Miller argues that the district court erroneously granted defendants' motion to dismiss his claim that the February 25, 2000 collection letter sent by W & A violates § 1692g because it would confuse the least sophisticated customer as to his or her rights under the FDCPA. On appeal, Miller raises three objections to the letter: (1) the failure of the checklist on the front of the letter to include an option to request validation of the debt could confuse a consumer, notwithstanding the notice on the reverse of the letter advising that requests for debt-validation must be in writing; (2) the validation notice itself is deceptive because it suggests that the listed information is an exclusive listing of a consumer's rights under the FDCPA; and (3) the listing of forty-four cities as NAN affiliates on the letterhead is misleading because it could suggest to a consumer that W & A was admitted to practice law in all of those jurisdictions. 68 Defendants again raise a preliminary issue of waiver. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the letter was misleading because it identified only certain FDCPA rights (Complaint, at ¶ 77), and instructed the consumer to call W & A to resolve the matter (Complaint, at ¶¶ 88-92). In opposition to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff argued only that the letter violated the FDCPA because a reasonable reading of the notice on [the] initial debt collection letter is that consumers have only the rights specified in the letter and not others. Pl. Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, at 19-21. Finally, when asked by the district court at oral argument to articulate how the letter violated the FDCPA, plaintiff explained: 69 The validation notice says, after reading the notice, call if appropriate. A call is not sufficient to preserve your rights under the FDCPA .... As a matter of fact, the only thing that the notice encourages [consumers] to do in writing is to check those various boxes .... None of these boxes assume that I contest this debt. 70 Accordingly, because plaintiff was given numerous opportunities to clarify the claims at issue, and failed to raise the claim that listing the forty-four NAN affiliated firms was deceptive or misleading at any time before this appeal, we find this argument to be waived. See Caiola, 295 F.3d at 327. 71 As previously noted, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e bars the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. In addition, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g requires debt collectors to include a validation notice either in the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of a debt or within five days of that initial communication, which must inform the consumer that he or she has certain rights, including the rights to make a written request for verification of the debt and to dispute the validity of debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). 72 When determining whether § 1692g has been violated, an objective standard, measured by how the `least sophisticated consumer' would interpret the notice received from the debt collector, is applied. Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Clomon, 988 F.2d at 1318 (holding that the least sophisticated consumer standard applies to whether § 1692e has been violated)). When a notice contains language that `overshadows or contradicts' other language informing a consumer of her rights, it violates the Act. Id. (citing Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 111 (3d Cir.1991)). A debt collection notice is overshadowing or contradictory if it fails to convey the validation information clearly and effectively and thereby makes the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights. Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir.1998). 73 In Russell, as in the instant case, the back of the notice included a validation notice that complied with the FDCPA. The front of the Russell letter, however, instructed the debtor, in all capital letters, that If you do not dispute this claim (see reverse side) and wish to pay it within the next 10 days we will not post this collection to your file.... It is our practice to post unpaid collections in the amount of $25 or more to individual credit records. Russell, 74 F.3d at 34. We found that this notice was contradictory because the least sophisticated consumer could readily believe — despite the inclusion of the validation notice—that were she to take any course other than payment to Equifax within 10 days, it would permanently affect her credit record. Id. Similarly, in Savino, we held that a debt collection letter stating that [t]he [creditor] insists on immediate payment or a valid reason for your failure to make payment was contradictory, despite the inclusion of the validation notice on the back of the letter, because the least sophisticated consumer could be confused by the decision to ask for immediate payment without also explaining that its demand did not override the consumer's rights under [§ 1692g] to seek validation of the debt. 164 F.3d at 85, 86. 74 The W & A letter clearly advises the reader, in the main body of the letter,  [a]fter reading the important notice on the reverse to call our office to resolve this matter  if appropriate.  (emphasis added). The notice on the back, in turn, correctly instructs consumers that they should notify W & A in writing to request verification of the debt or to dispute the debt, while the front of the letter instructs the recipient that [w]hen paying the balance in full or if you are unable to call our office, check one of the options below and return the bottom portion of this letter.... While the options detailed on the bottom of the letter do not include requesting validation of the debt, the bottom of the letter states in large-print, capital letters, BEFORE RESPONDING TO THIS LETTER SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT NOTICE. Thus, the reader is directed to the correct validation notice in several places, and is thereby advised of his or her FDCPA rights. See McStay v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 188, 191 (2d Cir.2002) ([W]hen a prominent instruction in the body of the letter warns that there is important information on the reverse side, a reasonable reader, even if unsophisticated, would turn the paper over and read the back.). 75 With these repeated instructions to review the validation notice on the back of the letter before responding to the letter, even the least sophisticated consumer would realize that it is appropriate to contact W & A's office by phone only if the consumer did not wish to exercise his or her FDCPA rights as outlined on the reverse of the letter. Where a validation notice plainly specifies that FDCPA contact must be in writing, and nothing on the front of the letter suggests in any way that an instruction to call was intended to override the requirements outlined in the validation notice, we do not believe that a reasonable consumer — having twice been instructed to review the validation notice before taking any further action—who wished to exercise his or her FDCPA validation rights could be misled into thinking that the clear obligation to request validation in writing was somehow modified by either the invitation to call if appropriate or the four options on the bottom of the letter. As this Court noted in Clomon, courts have consistently applied the least-sophisticated-consumer standard in a manner that protects debt collectors against liability for unreasonable misinterpretations of collection notices. 988 F.2d at 1319. We therefore agree with the district court's conclusion that the letter was not misleading or deceptive on these grounds. 76 Finally, plaintiff argues that the letter is deceptive because the validation notice, which states that the recipient is entitled to certain information that sets forth your rights and obligations under the law, and then describes what [t]he law provides, incorrectly suggests to the least sophisticated consumer that the listed information is an exclusive list of a consumer's FDCPA rights. Plaintiff does not, however, dispute that the notice includes everything that the law requires be included in the validation notice. Because a consumer has no right to written notice about his or her other FDCPA rights, we do not find this language misleading or deceptive. See Savino, 164 F.3d at 86 (holding that the language at issue in that case was insufficient under the FDCPA, and proposing as an acceptable alternative the following notice: Although we have requested that you make immediate payment or provide a valid reason for nonpayment, you still have the right to make a written request ... for more information about the debt. Your rights are described on the reverse side of this notice. ) (emphasis added). Further, by advising that the FDCPA entitles a debtor to certain information, the letter itself addresses plaintiff's concern, and cannot reasonably be read as suggesting that the rights described in the notice are an exclusive listing. 77 Accordingly, the initial collection letter sent by W & A was not false, deceptive or misleading as a matter of law, and the motions to dismiss this claim were properly granted.