Ben-Davies v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A., 421 F.Supp.3d 94

Background

Blibaum & Associates, P.A. represented Peak Management and Henderson‑Webb in landlord‑tenant breach‑of‑lease suits and obtained money judgments against four tenants (Ben‑Davies, Moore, Chavis, Crowell).
In post‑judgment collection communications and wage‑garnishment requests, Blibaum applied a 10% post‑judgment interest rate.
Plaintiffs sued in federal court asserting violations of the FDCPA, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA), and (for Ben‑Davies) the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA).
The court certified to the Maryland Court of Appeals the question whether residential‑lease breach judgments accrue post‑judgment interest at 6% or 10%; the Court of Appeals held 6% applies.
After that state ruling, the district court addressed Blibaum’s motion for summary judgment on FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of FDCPA claims	FDCPA violations occurred within one year of filing because collection communications with 10% interest happened during the year before suit.	Limitations began at the first instance of collection using 10% interest, which occurred more than one year before filing; later communications are continuations, not new violations.	FDCPA claims are time‑barred; statute runs from the first violation and subsequent similar communications do not restart the limitations period.
Applicability of MCDCA to 10% interest charge	Challenging the unlawfully high interest is challenging an "unauthorized charge" under the MCDCA, not the validity of the underlying debt.	The interest amount is inseparable from the debt; disputing it challenges the underlying debt rather than an unauthorized ancillary charge.	Court: the 10% rate is an unauthorized charge distinct from the underlying debt and is covered by the MCDCA.
MCDCA "knowledge" requirement / mistake of law defense	Blibaum argued the law was unsettled and it reasonably believed it could charge 10%; thus lacked knowing attempt to collect an unauthorized charge.	Plaintiffs: ignorance of the law does not preclude liability; the charge was prohibited and Blibaum acted knowingly in applying it.	Court: mistake of law insufficient; given statutory text and later state court guidance, Blibaum cannot escape liability under MCDCA—summary judgment denied on MCDCA claims.
MCPA claim against law firm (Ben‑Davies only)	MCPA applies because Blibaum provided no "professional services" to the plaintiffs; exemption should be interpreted narrowly.	The MCPA exempts lawyers' professional services; debt‑collection services by law firms fall within that exemption.	Court: MCPA professional‑services exemption applies to Blibaum; Ben‑Davies’s MCPA claim dismissed (summary judgment for defendant).

Key Cases Cited

Ben‑Davies v. Blibaum & Assocs., P.A., 457 Md. 228 (Md. 2018) (Maryland Court of Appeals: 6% post‑judgment interest applies to judgments for residential lease breaches)
Fontell v. Hassett, 870 F. Supp. 2d 395 (D. Md. 2012) (statute of limitations for FDCPA claims begins at first violation; subsequent similar communications do not restart limitations)
Spencer v. Henderson‑Webb, Inc., 81 F. Supp. 2d 582 (D. Md. 1999) (mistake of law does not necessarily shield debt collectors from MCDCA liability)
Allstate Lien & Recovery Corp. v. Stansbury, 445 Md. 187 (Md. 2015) (disallowing certain ancillary fees; supports that unauthorized charges can be challenged under state consumer‑collection law)
Mills v. Galyn Manor Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc., 239 Md. App. 663 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018) (suggesting fines/charges not authorized by governing documents may be "unauthorized" under MCDCA)
Hawkins v. Kilberg, 165 F. Supp. 3d 386 (D. Md. 2016) (holding that attorneys performing debt‑collection services fall within MCPA's professional‑services exemption)