Opinion ID: 1238683
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Text: Hartman and Rice assert that Great Seneca's and Javitch's behavior violates three provisions of the FDCPA: (1) 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, which provides that [a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt; (2) § 1692e(10), which prohibits [t]he use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer; and (3) § 1692f, which provides that [a] debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. We have explained the concerns and standards applicable to FDCPA claims as follows: Congress enacted the FDCPA to eliminate abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a). When interpreting the FDCPA, we begin with the language of the statute itself. Schroyer v. Frankel, 197 F.3d 1170, 1174 (6th Cir.1999). As this court has noted, the FDCPA is extraordinarily broad, crafted in response to what Congress perceived to be a widespread problem. Frey v. Gangwish, 970 F.2d 1516, 1521 (6th Cir.1992). Courts use the least sophisticated consumer standard, an objective test, when assessing whether particular conduct violates the FDCPA. Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324, 329 (6th Cir.2006). This standard ensures that the FDCPA protects all consumers, the gullible as well as the shrewd. Kistner v. Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky, LLC., 518 F.3d 433, 438 (6th Cir.2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nonetheless, the standard also prevents liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection notices by preserving a quotient of reasonableness and presuming a basic level of understanding and willingness to read with care. Id. at 438-39 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332-33 (6th Cir.2008). Ohio law requires that [w]hen any claim or defense is founded on an account or other written instrument, a copy of the account or written instrument must be attached to the pleading. Ohio Civ. R. 10(D). The Ohio courts have explained this requirement as follows: It is elementary that in an action on an account, a plaintiff must set forth an actual copy of the recorded account. The records must show the name of the party charged and must include the following: (1) a beginning balance (zero, or a sum that can qualify as an account stated, or some other provable sum); (2) listed items, or an item, dated and identifiable by number or otherwise, representing charges, or debits, and credits; and (3) summarization by means of a running or developing balance, or an arrangement of beginning balance and items which permits the calculation of the amount claimed to be due. Arthur v. Parenteau, 102 Ohio App.3d 302, 657 N.E.2d 284, 286 (1995) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Because Great Seneca and Javitch sued Hartman and Rice in Ohio state court, they were subject to this requirement. In attempting to comply with this requirement, Great Seneca and Javitch did two things which form the basis of Hartman's and Rice's current claims. First, the state-court complaints alleged that Hartman and Rice owed Great Seneca money on an account and that [a] copy of the said Account is attached hereto as `Exhibit A.' Hartman Ex. A to Am. Compl.; Rice Ex. A to Am. Compl. Second, Great Seneca and Javitch attached to each complaint, as Exhibit A, a document which had been generated at Great Seneca's behest. As described above, these documents facially resembled credit-card statements but were not actually copies of the Providian credit-card accounts on which Hartman and Rice were sued. Instead, these documents contained general information about the debt that had been transferred electronically from Providian to Unifund and then to Great Seneca. [4] Although these documents showed a final balance due, they did not contain a listing of debits and credits that had been made throughout the life of the account. Hartman and Rice assert that Great Seneca's and Javitch's representation that Exhibit A was a copy of the account on which they were being sued is false, deceptive, and/or misleading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692e(10) and is an unfair means of collecting a debt in violation of § 1692f. Determining whether Great Seneca's and Javitch's representations regarding Exhibit A were false would require us to decide what account means under Ohio law. However, because we conclude that Hartman and Rice have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Great Seneca's and Javitch's representations were misleading or deceptive, we hold that summary judgment is inappropriate regardless of whether the designation of Exhibit A as an account was false. Though Exhibit A identifies Great Seneca as an assignee of Unifund, and Unifund as an assignee of Providian, the document on the whole looks like a credit-card statement issued by Great Seneca. See Kistner v. Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky, LLC, 518 F.3d 433, 440-41 (6th Cir.2008) (Based on these conflicting aspects of the letter, we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Margelefsky, but we will not go to the other extreme either by granting summary judgment to Kistner. Instead, a jury should determine whether the letter is deceptive and misleading....). Exhibit A contains no information that would enable a consumer to determine what had been charged to or paid on this account, or when the debt was accrued. The only language in the document indicating that Great Seneca is a debt collector is the word assignee, a legal term that would not necessarily help the least sophisticated consumer understand the relationships between the parties listed. At this stage of litigation, Hartman and Rice do not need to establish that Exhibit A would definitely mislead the least sophisticated consumer. Instead, they need only show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Exhibit A would mislead the least sophisticated consumer. Given the fact that the document appears to be a recent credit-card bill, which it is not, and with few indications to the contrary, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether this document would mislead the least sophisticated consumer. Accordingly, summary judgment is improper. [5] Summary judgment is also improper on Hartman's and Rice's state claims under the OCSPA. [6] The district court concluded that Great Seneca and Javitch did not make false or deceptive representations and that Hartman's and Rice's OCSPA claims should therefore be dismissed. For the reasons discussed above, Hartman and Rice have sufficiently alleged that Great Seneca's and Javitch's representations were misleading and deceptive. Accordingly, their OCSPA claims should not have been dismissed. See Kistner, 518 F.3d at 441 (The district court also granted summary judgment to Margelefsky on Kistner's OCSPA claims. Judgment on these claims was predicated on the court's conclusion that the collection letter `did not make any misrepresentations, nor was it deceptive in any way,' and therefore did not violate the FDCPA. Kistner presented no independent evidence for her OCSPA claims, and the district court therefore saw no reason not to grant summary judgment to Margelefsky on those claims. Because we have concluded that summary judgment on the FDCPA claims was improperly granted, Kistner's OCSPA claims ... must be remanded to the district court for reconsideration.). Similarly, because Hartman's and Rice's § 1692f claims were dismissed based on the district court's conclusion that Great Seneca's and Javitch's representations were not deceptive or misleading, summary judgment on those claims is improper.