Camille Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13498
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Haddad owned and resided in a Cumberland Condominium unit for years before renting it out; the Firm represented the Association and its property manager.
- In Oct 2008 the Firm sent Haddad a notice asserting $898 in delinquent assessments plus late charges and legal fees, threatening a lien if unpaid within 30 days.
- Haddad disputed the amount on Nov 13, 2008, alleging years of timely payments and improper bylaw enforcement by Kramer-Triad.
- Dec 3, 2008 the Firm sent a second notice with an account ledger and stated the total owed, including a $55 legal fee; Haddad disputed a $75 carryover balance.
- Jan 20, 2009 the Firm sent another ledger showing a $50 carryover balance and demanded $1,063, but did not explain the carryover; the Firm then filed a lien in May 2009.
- The lien was discharged in Feb 2010; Haddad sued under the FDCPA and MCPA; the district court granted summary judgment for the Firm, later reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Firm properly verify the debt under 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b)? | Haddad contends verification was inadequate. | Firm argues it verified as required by the statute. | Governing issue reversed; Haddad entitled to summary judgment on verification. |
| Was the Firm's verification sufficient notice of the debt's origin and amount to enable dispute? | Carryover balances lacked explanation, hindering dispute. | Two ledgers and statements were sufficient under Chaudhry/Mahon/Graziano framework. | Not sufficient here; the carryover $50/$75 lacked explanation, violating 1692g(b). |
| Were the lien and related communications misleading under the FDCPA or MCPA? | Lien and notices mischaracterized the debt by including non-debt amounts. | Lien amount conformed to MCA and by-laws; communications were accurate. | Held the communications were not misleading; affirm district court on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (verification is baseline written confirmation of amounts owed)
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991) (itemized accounting can satisfy verification)
- Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (verification practices vary; may include balance and statements)
- Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (verification may include itemized information beyond basic amount)
- Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 663 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2011) (verification can be sufficient when debtor can dispute the obligation)
- Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir. 1992) (no independent investigation required for amount accuracy; focus on verification purpose)
- Santos v. United States, 553 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court 2008) (statutory term meaning invoked in interpretation)