959 F. Supp. 2d 698
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Krisber and Mario Castro allege FDCPA and TCPA violations by Green Tree Servicing and Kevin Smith.
- Green Tree began debt collection after acquiring the defaulted mortgage debt in 2009; plaintiffs received a September 18, 2009 validation notice and a September 26, 2009 billing statement.
- Defendants later sent a October 28, 2009 “90 Day Notice” threatening possible foreclosure and continued collection actions.
- Plaintiffs claim the September 18 letter mis-stated the debt amount, violated validation notice requirements, and misled as to the nature of the debt.
- Plaintiffs also challenge Green Tree’s Privacy Notice as improper under FDCPA and GLBA, and allege multiple autodialer calls to plaintiffs’ cell phones in violation of the TCPA.
- The parties cross-moved for summary judgment; the court granted in part for plaintiffs and denied in part for defendants, and ordered sanctions briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 9/18/2009 validation notice violated 1692g | Castro argued the letter stated the full balance, not the past due, misrepresenting the debt. | Green Tree contends past-due amount was provided within five days and 1692g allows sequential notices. | Sígnificant 1692g violation; not all required items in one notice; summary judgment for plaintiff on 1692g. |
| Whether 9/18/2009 letter violated 1692e by false/misleading debt information | Plaintiff argues misstatement of debt amount and status misleads least sophisticated consumer. | Defendants contend no false representation about legality or amount. | Yes; 1692e violation found due to misstatement about debt and its status. |
| Whether 9/26/2009 Privacy Notice violated 1692e/e(5)/e(10) and GLBA | Notice misleadingly suggested third-party sharing of nonpublic information without adequate safeguards. | Argues GLBA-required; argues no FDCPA violation; cites Ruth and Kinel. | Yes; Privacy Notice violates 1692e; GLBA defense rejected as not excusing FDCPA violation. |
| Whether 10/28/2009 90 Day Notice violated 1692e/1692f | Notice threatened foreclosure in a manner constituting misrepresentation of legal action. | Notice not a true threat; offered options; not a mandatory foreclosure threat. | No summary judgment for plaintiffs on 90 Day Notice for e/f; issue fact-bound. |
| Whether TCPA claims survive given consent/auto-dialing evidence | 34 auto-dialer calls to cell numbers; calls connected or not; consent argued not given. | Defendant argues no willful violation and consent defense; records disputed. | Genuine issues of fact on TCPA; denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruth v. Triumph Partnerships, 577 F.3d 790 (7th Cir.2009) (privacy notices can violate FDCPA when they threaten improper disclosures)
- Gabriele v. Am. Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 503 F. App’x 89 (2d Cir.2012) (material misrepresentations in FDCPA context require materiality)
- Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, Inc., 886 F.2d 22 (2d Cir.1989) (misleading language and threat analyses under FDCPA)
- Barnes v. Advanced Call Center Techs., LLC, 493 F.3d 838 (7th Cir.2007) (amount not equivalent to ‘amount of the debt’ in validation notices)
- Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir.1996) (FDCPA strict liability; single violation suffices for liability)