Opinion ID: 572670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Demand for Payment Within Ten Days

Text: 12 Graziano argues that Harrison's demand for payment within ten days, when read in conjunction with the statutory notice that Graziano had thirty days within which to dispute the debt, constituted a breach of section 1692g. 4 The district court was of the view that Harrison's inclusion of these inconsistent recitals violated section 1692e(10), 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, and, by way of illustration, specifies, inter alia, [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. The district court determined, however, that this violation was without consequence, because Graziano had not alleged a violation of section 1692e(10). The court went on to grant summary judgment to Harrison on the count alleging a violation of section 1692g, reasoning that, regardless of the inclusion of the demand for payment within ten days, the text of the statutory notice was adequate to advise Graziano of his rights under that section. 13 We agree with the district court that there was a violation of section 1692e(10). We feel, however, that the juxtaposition of two inconsistent statements also rendered the statutory notice invalid under section 1692g. Statutory notice under the Act is to be interpreted from the perspective of the least sophisticated debtor. 5 Baker v. G. C. Servs., 677 F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir.1982). To comply with the terms of the Act, statutory notice must not only explicate a debtor's rights; it must do so effectively. Thus, for example, the notice must be in print sufficiently large to be read, and must be sufficiently prominent to be noticed. See Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Serv., 869 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th Cir.1988). More importantly for present purposes, the notice must not be overshadowed or contradicted by accompanying messages from the debt collector. There is a reasonable probability that the least sophisticated debtor, faced with a demand for payment within ten days and a threat of immediate legal action if payment is not made in that time, would be induced to overlook his statutory right to dispute the debt within thirty days. See id. at 1225-26. A notice of rights, when presented in conjunction with such a contradictory demand, is not effectively communicated to the debtor. We conclude that the statutory notice provided by Harrison failed to meet the terms of section 1692g.