Cardona v. FCI Lender Services, Inc.
1:17-cv-01278
N.D. Ill.Aug 16, 2017Background
- Dawn Cardona defaulted on a 2009 mortgage; she filed bankruptcy in 2010 and received a discharge in February 2011; foreclosure litigation followed and the loan was transferred in 2014 and 2016.
- In January 2017 Cardona received a letter from FCI Lender Services stating account status and listing amounts due; the letter included a bolded notice that the account was in foreclosure and a bankruptcy disclaimer stating the communication was informational for those in bankruptcy or discharged.
- Cardona sued FCI under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging the January 2017 letter was an attempt to collect a discharged debt.
- FCI moved to dismiss; because the motion relied on materials outside the complaint, the court converted the motion to one for summary judgment and allowed supplementation.
- The threshold FDCPA inquiry focused on whether the communication was sent "in connection with the collection of a debt;" FCI conceded it was a debt collector, so only that second prong was at issue.
- The district court concluded, as a matter of law, that the letter was informational and not an attempt to collect a discharged debt and granted summary judgment for FCI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the January 2017 letter was a communication "in connection with the collection of a debt" (i.e., triggered the FDCPA) | Cardona: letter lists amounts due (including late charges) and is a demand for payment on a discharged debt | FCI: letter was informational, included an explicit bankruptcy/discharge disclaimer, and did not attempt collection | Court: Letter was informational, not an attempt to collect; FDCPA not triggered; summary judgment for FCI |
| Whether an unsophisticated consumer could reasonably be misled by the letter | Cardona: the amounts and format would make even an unsophisticated consumer feel obliged to pay | FCI: disclaimer and overall context (foreclosure history, bankruptcy discharge) make the letter not misleading | Court: objectively not misleading; no genuine issue of material fact; plaintiff's affidavit insufficient |
| Whether plaintiff produced evidence beyond the letter to create a factual dispute | Cardona: relied on her affidavit and complaint allegations | FCI: pointed to the letter and surrounding records showing informational purpose | Court: plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient extrinsic evidence; no reasonable juror could find collection intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, P.C., 383 F.3d 562 (unsophisticated consumer standard in FDCPA cases)
- Gburek v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, 614 F.3d 380 (FDCPA requires communication be sent in connection with debt collection)
- Lox v. CDA, Ltd., 689 F.3d 818 (whether communication is misleading is a question of fact)
- Durkin v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 410 (plaintiff must present extrinsic evidence beyond the letter to create a material factual dispute)