Bryson Ray v. McCullough Payne & Haan, LLC
838 F.3d 1107
11th Cir.2016Background
- McCullough Payne & Haan obtained a judgment against consumer Bryson Ray in Fulton County, GA (where Ray resided) under the FDCPA venue rules for initial suits.
- The firm then initiated a post-judgment garnishment proceeding in Cobb County, GA against Ray’s bank (the garnishee), as required by Georgia law.
- Ray sued under the FDCPA, alleging the garnishment action violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2) because it was filed in a judicial district other than where he resided or signed the contract.
- The district court dismissed Ray’s complaint, reasoning the FDCPA venue provision applies only to actions ‘‘against any consumer’’ and garnishment is an action against a garnishee.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether Georgia garnishment proceedings are ‘‘legal actions . . . against any consumer’’ for purposes of the FDCPA.
- The court held Georgia law treats garnishment as an action between plaintiff (judgment creditor) and garnishee, so the FDCPA venue provision does not apply to Georgia post-judgment garnishments; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FDCPA §1692i(a)(2) (venue restriction) applies to post-judgment garnishment proceedings under Georgia law | Ray: The statute should be read to apply to any "legal action on a debt against any consumer," so garnishment enforcing a debt against a consumer falls within the venue restriction (invoking last-antecedent reading) | McCullough: The FDCPA applies only to actions "against any consumer;" garnishment is an action against the garnishee under Georgia law, not the consumer | The FDCPA venue provision does not apply to Georgia garnishment proceedings because Georgia law treats garnishment as an action against the garnishee, not the consumer; Ray’s FDCPA claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., 714 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2013) (holding Massachusetts trustee-process enforcement actions are not actions "against the consumer" for FDCPA venue provision)
- Hageman v. Barton, 817 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding Illinois garnishment proceedings are not actions "against the consumer" for FDCPA venue provision)
- Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1994) (contrary Ninth Circuit decision holding FDCPA venue provision applied to Arizona garnishment—did not analyze "against any consumer" language)
- Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1998) (treating FTC staff commentary on FDCPA as entitled to considerable weight)