Court Opinion

ID: 9511289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:03:37.654932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:57.642996
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COTTER
dissenting.
¶28 I respectfully dissent.
¶29 The Court concludes at ¶18 that acceptance of a partial payment after having made a demand for full payment waives the collector’s *488right to statutory damages under § 27-1-717, MCA. The problem is that the statute suggests no such thing.
¶30 Given that CBS did not violate the statute as written, and that this Court’s interpretation of the statute is a matter of first impression, I find our application of the provisions of the FDCPA, and the imposition of over $ 17,000.00 in attorney fees and costs under that Act, unconscionable. We have effectively, and in violation of § 1-2-101, MCA, inserted into § 27-1-717, MCA, what has been omitted, and then faulted CBS for not construing the law as we-for the first time-have interpreted it. Even if we conclude that CBS was wrong, it is patently unfair to punish it so excessively for taking a position that is entirely defensible under the statute as written. I therefore dissent.
JUSTICE NELSON and JUSTICE RICE join in the dissent of JUSTICE COTTER.