Alexandra Jewsevskyj v. Financial Recovery Services In
704 F. App'x 145
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Alexandra Jewsevskyj received an initial debt-collection letter from Financial Recovery Services (FRS) stating LVNV Funding purchased a $1,128 debt.
- The letter used all-uppercase Times New Roman, 8-point font, with compressed line spacing; the § 1692g validation notice appeared in the second paragraph on the first page.
- Jewsevskyj sued (putative class) alleging the validation notice was not sufficiently prominent or readable under the FDCPA § 1692g.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the notice adequate for the “least sophisticated debtor.”
- On appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the notice was readable, not overshadowed or contradicted, and met § 1692g requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the validation notice complied with FDCPA § 1692g | The small 8-pt compressed, all-caps text made the notice insufficiently prominent/readable | The notice, though small and compressed, was plain English, on the first page, same font as rest of letter, and not misleading | Affirmed: notice complied with § 1692g |
| Whether the notice was overshadowed or contradicted by other language | The formatting caused the notice to be overshadowed and thus ineffective | No other language or formatting was more prominent; nothing contradicted the notice | Affirmed: no overshadowing or contradiction |
| Whether a debtor’s rights must be more than verbatim recitation | Recitation is insufficient if not effectively conveyed due to formatting | Verbatim recitation can satisfy § 1692g if effectively conveyed and legible | Affirmed: effective conveyance required and present here |
| Whether any material factual dispute precluded summary judgment | Formatting and readability create triable issues of fact | No genuine dispute: notice was concise, legible, and not misleading | Affirmed: summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2000) (validation notice must be effectively conveyed and not overshadowed)
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991) (notice must be sufficiently prominent and not contradicted by other messages)
- Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 709 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2013) (§ 1692g provides statutory means to obtain verification of debt)
- Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 550 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2008) (least sophisticated debtor standard explained; debtor bound to read notices)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: movant entitled when nonmoving party fails to show essential element)
- Mylan Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 723 F.3d 413 (3d Cir. 2013) (appellate standard of review for summary judgment)