Court Opinion

ID: 9483209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:14:22.921142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:01.995449
License: Public Domain

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent state action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” Id. at § 1692(e). Under the aegis of the plain meaning rule, the majority interprets the FDCPA in a manner that, in my view, not only incorrectly applies that doctrine of statutory construction, but also imposes severe and unnecessary burdens on ethical debt collectors.
The majority first turns its plain meaning analysis on the FDCPA’s validation notice requirement, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(ll). This section compels debt collectors to include a validation notice in any “initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.” Id. The majority fails to observe, however, that Gangwish’s letter cannot be an “initial communication” with Frey.
The majority attempts to circumvent this dilemma by observing that, “[although Gangwish had prior communications with Frey’s attorney, his post-judgment letter was his first communication with Frey.” In fact, the record is silent as to whether this letter was the initial communication with Frey. Presumably, Frey was prompted to seek and secure counsel for her 1987 debt to J.C. Penny Co. by some notice that she was in arrears. Thus, it stands to reason that there is a prior communication in this case between Gangwish and Frey than the one presently subject to judicial scrutiny. Frey has failed to establish the content of this communication.
More importantly, even if we assume that Frey sought counsel without prompting, Gangwish’s prior communications with Frey’s attorney preclude a finding that the post-judgment letter was an initial communication. An attorney is both a fiduciary to and an agent of his client. As a result, conveying notice or knowledge to an attorney is regarded as equivalent to conveying notice or knowledge to the client. The Supreme Court has long held that “each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have ‘notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.’ ” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (quoting, Smith v. Ayer, 101 U.S. 320, 326, 25 L.Ed. 955 (1879)). The plain language of the FDCPA expresses no intention to abrogate this general rule, and I believe that the majority’s, at least implicit, decision to do so is unwise.
The facts of this case, which the majority largely ignores, further compel this conclu*1522sion. Gangwish’s letter was sent approximately four years after the debt was incurred. During this period, there were lengthy negotiations between Frey’s attorney and her creditor. These negotiations resulted in a judgment to which Frey agreed and on which she made twelve installment payments. Finally, a garnishment was issued from the district court, some two years after the agreed judgment and several attempts to secure payment. At all relevant times, Frey continued to be represented by counsel. To require a validation notice after a closely negotiated and ultimately agreed upon judgment would serve no purpose; to regard Gangwish’s letter as an initial communication is more than the plain meaning of the statute or the facts in this case will bear.
The majority also believes that Gang-wish’s letter violated the FDCPA’s disclosure requirement, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(ll). I disagree. The relevant portion of this letter is its concluding paragraph, which reads, “Naturally it is in your best interest, and ours, to pay this judgment off as soon as possible. If you would like to make periodic payment arrangements please call us immediately.” Section 1692e(ll) requires that the debt collector “disclose” that he “is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for the purpose.” Although Gangwish’s letter did not contain these exact words, the statute does not prescribe any specific formulation for the disclosure. Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, Inc., 886 F.2d 22, 26 (2d Cir.1989); Emanuel v. American Credit Exch., 870 F.2d 805, 808 (2d Cir.1989). Even under the “least sophisticated consumer” standard see Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1028-29 (6th Cir.1992), (applying the standard to alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3)); I believe that the letter adequately informed Frey that Gangwish was seeking collection of a debt concededly owed by plaintiff. A debtor in Frey’s position would clearly be aware of the nature and scope of her debt and her rights. Here the communication requested contact from the debtor in the context of making arrangements to pay off the judgment. I therefore would hold that this communication clearly, although implicitly, discloses the information required by section 1692e(ll). Against the backdrop of the parties’ extensive prior dealings and the context of Gangwish’s letter itself, any other conclusion is absurd.
Further, the facts clearly reveal that even if there were a technical violation of the statute, the case should never have been brought. Frey does not dispute the debt that Gangwish is seeking to collect, does not assert that the letter was harassing, misleading, or abusive, and does not claim to have been harmed in any way by the letter. Moreover, at oral argument, Frey’s attorney was unable to articulate any damage to Frey as a result of the violation. The only injury which flows from the alleged violation here is the waste of valuable, finite judicial resources. The pointless exercise of such litigation may also have a damaging secondary effect on debtors. In order to avoid technical noncompliance with statutory requirements, creditors may well decide to withhold necessary informative communication.
The suspicion raised in my mind is whether the UAW Legal Services Plan, of whom this statute seems to be a favorite,2 is more interested in the mandatory statutory award of attorney’s fees than they are in protecting the rights of debtors against dishonest debt collectors. Were I the district judge in this matter, I would contemplate imposing Rule 11 sanctions. Since I am not, I can only advise that on remand, the district judge remain cognizant of the absence of damages and of the true tenor of the longstanding relationship between these parties when statutory damages are sought. See Pipiles, 886 F.2d at 28; Emanuel, 870 F.2d at 809. Finally, I caution the UAW Legal Services Plan to choose battles worth fighting.

. This court found 38 cases under this statute reported or otherwise available on electronic database filed by various UAW Legal Services offices as of March 28, 1988.