38 F.4th 976
11th Cir.2022Background
- Charles and Tracy Lamirand defaulted on a mortgage; parties later settled, agreeing the Lamirands owed $85,790.99 payable in one year.
- Four months after the settlement, Fay Servicing took over and began sending monthly periodic statements saying the loan had been accelerated, showing a higher balance (~$92,789.55) due sooner, and warning of foreclosure and additional fees.
- Each statement included a detachable payment coupon, multiple instructions and methods to pay, and a disclosure that Fay Servicing is a debt collector.
- The Lamirands sued under the FDCPA and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, alleging the statements were false/misleading and were attempts to collect debt contrary to FDCPA §§ 1692e and 1692f.
- The district court dismissed the FDCPA claim, reasoning the statements were TILA-mandated disclosures (periodic statements) and thus not "related to debt collection." The Eleventh Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TILA-mandated periodic statements can be "in connection with" debt collection under the FDCPA | Lamirand: Statements conveyed debt information and aimed at least in part to induce payment (false amount, warnings, payment coupon) | Fay: Statements were informational disclosures required by TILA, not debt-collection communications under the FDCPA | Court: A communication can serve both purposes; periodic statements may be FDCPA-covered if they convey debt info and at least in part aim to induce payment; allegations here are plausible and survive dismissal |
| Whether a CFPB bulletin exempts periodic statements from FDCPA liability | Lamirand: Bulletin addresses a different FDCPA provision and does not exempt periodic statements from false/unfair practice provisions | Fay: Bulletin permits sending periodic statements without FDCPA liability, effectively carving them out | Court: Bulletin only addressed the FDCPA cease-communication provision; it does not shield periodic statements from FDCPA §§ 1692e/1692f liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 34 F.4th 1260 (11th Cir.) (harmonizing TILA and FDCPA; periodic statements can be debt-collection communications)
- Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 755 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir.) (communication is FDCPA-related if it conveys debt info and aims at least in part to induce payment)
- Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir.) (FDCPA liability limited to conduct related to debt collection)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings governs motions to dismiss)
- Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (Courts must give effect to overlapping statutes rather than choosing between them)
- Tug Allie-B, Inc. v. United States, 273 F.3d 936 (11th Cir.) (statutes are displaced only by irreconcilable conflict)