What Do The Courts Allow a Bill Collector To Do To You?
Bill Collector Abuse!
Bill collectors are being sued in courts across the country for allegedly violating the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collections Practices Act) by making harassing and abusive phone calls to consumers. There are all kinds of websites out there that list all of the so-called abuses of bill collectors but in most cases these websites are giving you bad information.
We at DebtEliminationTools.com only give you accurate information based on our expert legal research department’s findings. We know what constitutes harassing or abusive language. How do we know? We constantly are reviewing Court cases across the country involving bill collector lawsuits and here is what we found the Courts to consider to be harassing or abusive.
Section 1692d of the FDCPA provides that a bill collector may not engage in “any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. In addition, section 1692d(2) of the Act prohibits a bill collector from using “obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader.” But what exactly does this mean? In order to answer that question you need to find exisiting case law that deals with this issue.
When Does a Bill Collector Step Over The Line From Making An Appropriate Demand For Payment into An Harassing or Abusive Demand?
Our legal research department found the leading case law for this topic to be Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (7th Cir. 1985), where the Seventh Circuit Court held that a letter from a bill collector stating that an account would be referred for legal action, and that this “may cause you embarrassment, inconvenience and further expense,” did not violate section 1692d. Id. at 1178-79.
The Court determined that if a bill collector describes the potential impact of a bill collector lawsuit to you it is a “true statement” and did not create a “tone of intimidation.” The statement from the bill collector the Court stated did not violate section 1692d(2), because that subsection was “meant to deter offensive language which is at least akin to profanity or obscenity. The Court went on to say that, “…such offensive language might consist of name-calling, racial or ethnic slurs, and other derogatory remarks which are similar in their offensiveness to obscene or profane remarks.”
It was no surprise, therefore, in Horkey v. J.V.D.B. & Associates, Inc., 333 F. 3d 769 (7th Cir. 2003), when the Seventh Circuit affirmed a trial court ruling that section 1692d(2) was violated when the debtor explained to the bill collector that she could not discuss the debt at work but the bill collector called back and left a message with a co-worker stating “tell Amanda to stop being such a [expletive] bitch.”
More recently we found, the Sixth Circuit held in Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2006), that “the filing of a bill-collection lawsuit without the immediate means of proving the debt does not have the natural consequence of harassing, abusing, or oppressing a debtor” and thus does not violate section 1692d. Id. at 330. As the Harvey Court observed: “Any attempt to collect a defaulted debt will be unwanted by a debtor, but employing the court system in the way alleged by Harvey cannot be said to be an abusive tactic under the FDCPA.”
If A Bill Collector Constantly Calls The Wrong Debtor Is That Considered Harassment?
Our reseach department have clearly found that the courts have recognized that the FDCPA prohibits “only oppressive and outrageous conduct,” and that it was “not intended to shield even the least sophisticated recipients of debt collection activities from the inconvenience and embarrassment that are natural consequences of debt collection.” Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 383, 394 (D. Del. 1991) (attempts to collect debt from wrong individuals did not violate section 1692d); see also Bieber v. Associated Collection Servs., Inc., 631 F. Supp. 1410, 1471 (D. Kan. 1986) (asking if debtor had hired a bankruptcy attorney did not violate section 1692d: “
Section 1692d prohibits a debtor’s tender sensibilities only from oppressive and outrageous conduct. “Some inconvenience to the debtor is a natural consequence of debt collection.”; Shuler v. Ingram & Assocs., 710 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1222 (N.D. Ala. 2010) ( references to potential garnishment and liens were “probably unpleasant” but were not sufficient to support a claim: “Courts have construed narrowly the type of conduct that violates § 1692d( 2).”)).
Can a Bill Collector Laugh At You?
Our research has found that section 1692d only prohibits outrageous language and conduct. The courts have held that a bill collector laughing at a debtor during a collection call is not sufficient to support a section 1692d claim. See, e.g., Bassett v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 715 F. Supp. 2d 803, 809 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (laughing may be “rude” but does not amount to a section 1692d violation); Gallagher v. Gurstel, Staloch & Chargo, P.A., 645 F. Supp. 2d 795, 799 (D. Minn. 2009) (laughing is not even “remotely comparable” to type of conduct that violates section 1692d).
Can a Bill Collector Call You or Your Wife a Liar?
In addition we found that courts have held that calling a debtor a “liar” does not violate section 1692d. See, e.g., Bassett, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 809 (calling debtor “liar” and accusing him of making excuses to avoid payment did not violate section 1692d(2)); Guarjardo v. GC Servs., LP, 2009 WL 3715603 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2009) (calling debtor “liar,” demanding “payment in full within 24 hours or else,” and saying “I can tell the kind of life you live by the fact that you don’t pay your bills on time” not enough to prove section 1692d claim); Mammen v. Bronson & Migliacco, LLP, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1218 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (telling debtor “You’re lying, this is your account and you have to pay it” and then hanging up is not sufficient to prove a section 1692d claim); Montgomery v. Florida First Financial Group, Inc., 2008 WL 3540374 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2008) (calling debtor a “liar” and her mother a liar not enough to prove section 1692d claim).
A Bill Collector Is Allowed To Yell “Pay Your Damn Bills”!
We also found court cases where the courts have held that yelling at a debtor is not a violation of section 1692d. See, e.g., Kelemen v. Professional Collection Sys., 2011 WL 31396 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2011) (telling debtor to “pay your damn bills” was rude but not obscene or profane under section 1692d(2); noting that profane means “importing an imprecation of divine vengeance or implying divine condemnation or irreverence toward God or holy things.”); Unterreiner v. Stoneleigh Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2010 WL 2523257, *1 (N.D. Ill. June 17, 2010) (screaming at debtor, saying you owe “all kinds of money” and asking “how could you go and max out a card like that?” was “rude and unpleasant” but did not state a section 1692d claim); Thomas v. LDG Fin. Servs. LLC, 463 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1373 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (yelling at debtor “ Georgia is a garnishable state” and hanging up did not violate section 1692d).
Best Bill Collector Advice!
As you can see from our research the Courts allow a bill collector to make your life miserable. The best advice we can give you is to NEVER talk to a bill collector. Your only communication with a bill collector should be with a certified letter.
Our legal research department has developed the perfect letter that not only will STOP bill collectors from calling you and your employer, your relatives and neighbors. This letter will also discourage bill collectors from filing a lawsuit against you and or help you get the lawsuit dismissed if you get sued.
Click on the “Bill Collector Terminator Letter” to get access to this letter!
