Question

American Collections Enter prise, Inc. (ACEI) is a debt collector that contracted with Capital One in 2001 to provide debt collection services. Under the terms of the collection agreement, Capital One assigned delinquent accounts to ACEI for collection, and ACEI collected these debts on a contingent-fee basis. Pooja Goswami owed approximately $900 on her Capital One credit card and failed to pay. Capital One refer red that debt to ACEI for collection on March 20, 2001, and ACEI pursued Goswami's delinquent account. It sent a collection notice letter to Goswami on December 7, 2001. A second form letter was sent on January 25, 2002, more than 180 days after the debt had been refer red to ACEI. The second letter was sent to Goswami in an envelope that bore a half-inch-thick blue bar, across the entire envelope, containing the words "Priority Letter" in white. ACEI admitted that the markings on the envelope had been developed to entice debtors to open the letter. The letter itself contained a second blue bar and "Priority Letter" marking as a header. After receiving the letter, Goswami filed a complaint alleging violation of FDCPA, in particular 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692f(8) and 1692e(10). Goswami complained that the markings on the envelope violate Section 1692f (8), which prohibits any markings on debt collection letter envelopes besides the name and address of the sender and the addressee. She further complained that the con- tents of the letter were deceptive, in violation of Section 1692e(10). ACEI moved for summary judgment, arguing that neutral or benign expressions on an envelope, such as "priority letter," that in no way indicate it is a collection letter are not banned by FDCPA. The district court agreed, granted the defendant's summary judgment motion, and dismissed the case. Goswami appealed. Are the markings on the envelope and letter misleading and a violation of FDCPA? Why?


$1.99
Sales0
Views92
Comments0
  • CreatedOctober 21, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000