Opinion ID: 3026290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the fair debt collection practices

Text: ACT “The FDCPA was enacted in 1977 as an amendment to 7 Check Investors has filed a brief in support of its appeal and has joined in the brief filed by Hutchins. O:\PRECEDENTIAL\2005\053558p.wpd 16 the Consumer Credit Protection Act ‘to protect consumers from a host of unfair, harassing, and deceptive collection practices without imposing unnecessary restrictions on ethical debt collectors.’” Staub v. Harris, 626 F.2d 275, 276-77 (3d Cir. 1980) (quoting Consumer Credit Protection Act, S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 1-2 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1696). “The primary goal of the FDCPA is to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices, including threats of violence, use of obscene language, certain contacts with acquaintances of the consumer, late night phone calls, and simulated legal process.” Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C., 111 F.3d 1322, 1324 (7th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). “A basic tenet of the Act is that all consumers, even those who have mismanaged their financial affairs resulting in default on their debt, deserve the right to be treated in a reasonable and civil manner.” Id. O:\PRECEDENTIAL\2005\053558p.wpd 17 (citation omitted). Although Check Investors uses broad strokes to paint all of the payors of its NSF checks as deadbeats, criminals and/or tortfeasors, Congress’s findings in enacting the FDCPA are to the contrary. The relevant Senate report noted, inter alia, that [o]ne of the most frequent fallacies concerning debt collection legislation is the contention that the primary beneficiaries are “deadbeats.” In fact, however, there is universal agreement among scholars, law enforcement officials, and even debt collectors that the number of persons who willfully refuse to pay debts is minuscule. S. Rep. No. 93-382, at 2 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1696. Rather, Congress recognized that “the vast majority of consumers who obtain credit fully intend to repay their debts. When default occurs, it is nearly always due to an unforeseen event such as unemployment, overextension, serious illness or marital difficulties or divorce.” Id. Congress also recognized that “[a]busive debt collection O:\PRECEDENTIAL\2005\053558p.wpd 18 practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a). Thus, Congress concluded that “[t]he issue is not one of uncollected debts, but rather whether or not consumers must lose their civil rights and be terrorized and abused by unethical debt collectors.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-131, at 3 (1977). “In the most general terms, the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using certain enumerated collection methods . . . to collect a ‘debt’ from a consumer.” Bass, 111 F.3d at 1324. The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from, inter alia, engaging in any conduct “the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692d; from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any debt,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e; or from using “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or O:\PRECEDENTIAL\2005\053558p.wpd 19 attempt to collect any debt,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Within each broad category of prohibited conduct, the FDCPA includes examples of specific practices that are prohibited. Those prohibited practices could have been modeled on the various tactics Check Investors employed to collect the NSF checks it purchased. For example, the prohibition on harassing, oppressive or abusive practices precludes a debt collector from using abusive language, 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2), or from repeatedly calling a consumer, 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(3). The prohibition on false, deceptive or misleading representations precludes a debt collector from falsely representing that a dunning letter was sent by an attorney, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3), from falsely representing that nonpayment will result in arrest or imprisonment, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4), or that a consumer committed a crime, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(7). The prohibition on unfair or unconscionable O:\PRECEDENTIAL\2005\053558p.wpd 20 practices precludes a debt collector from adding any charge to the underlying debt unless that charge is authorized by law or the agreement creating the debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1). The FDCPA allows consumers to sue an offending creditor for actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, as well as statutory damages up to $1,000 . 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). The FDCPA also provides the FTC with enforcement authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1692l(a).