Chavis v. Blibaum Assoc.
230 A.3d 188
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2020Background
- Tenants defaulted on residential leases with Peak Management; Peak hired Blibaum & Associates to obtain judgments and pursue collection (including writs of garnishment).
- Blibaum calculated pre‑ and post‑judgment interest at 10% and included the district‑court filing fee for writs of garnishment in amounts garnished.
- Tenants sued in Baltimore City and Baltimore County alleging violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) § 14‑202(8) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), sought class certification, damages, and fees.
- Trial courts dismissed the MCDCA and MCPA claims and denied class certification; tenants appealed. The Court of Special Appeals consolidated the appeals.
- The Court of Appeals later resolved the statutory question of post‑judgment interest in Ben‑Davies, holding a 6% rate applies to judgments on residential leases.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal: MCDCA/MCPA claims failed because appellees had a right to collect interest and garnishment fees; the 2018 MCDCA amendment adding FDCPA violations was not retroactive; class certification denial was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collecting 10% pre‑ and post‑judgment interest violated MCDCA § 14‑202(8) | 10% interest was unauthorized under CJ § 11‑107 and so constituted an "unauthorized charge" under the MCDCA | Appellees had a right to collect interest and any dispute over rate is a legal disagreement, not an MCDCA methods‑of‑collection violation | Dismissal affirmed: MCDCA targets methods and unauthorized charges a creditor has no right to collect; dispute over interest amount (creditor had right to interest) is not cognizable under MCDCA |
| Whether including the writ‑of‑garnishment filing fee in amounts garnished violated MCDCA § 14‑202(8) and CL § 15‑605 | Garnishment fee was not "actually assessed in the cause" and thus was an unauthorized charge | The fee was properly included on the district‑court writ form and creditors may recover such costs; § 15‑605 governs payment allocation, not entitlement to costs | Dismissal affirmed: garnishment filing fee recoverable and its inclusion did not violate MCDCA |
| Whether overstated garnishment reports stating higher amounts (10% interest, costs) violated MCPA § 13‑301(1) | Misstated amounts deceived consumers, causing economic loss via larger garnishments | Statements reflected appellees' (albeit incorrect) legal position on a novel issue; not a deceptive practice under MCPA | Dismissal affirmed: asserting a legal position on a novel issue that later proves incorrect is not actionable under MCPA absent other deceptive/material misrepresentations |
| Whether the 2018 MCDCA amendment adding FDCPA violations (CL § 14‑202(11)) applies retroactively | Amendment should apply to appellees’ prior conduct to allow FDCPA‑based claims | Presumption against retroactivity; no clear legislative intent or express retroactive language | Amendment not applied retroactively; presumption against retroactive statutes controlling |
| Whether the court erred by denying a hearing on plaintiffs' second motion for class certification and by denying certification | Plaintiffs said deposition evidence (Blibaum) addressed prior concerns and entitled them to another hearing and certification | Court had already held a full hearing on the first motion; second motion added no basis entitling to another hearing; class definition and typicality were deficient | No abuse of discretion: no right to repeated hearings; class certification was properly denied due to deficient definition, lack of ascertainability, numerosity, typicality, and adequacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Ben‑Davies v. Blibaum & Assocs., P.A., 457 Md. 228 (Md. 2018) (Court of Appeals: 6% post‑judgment interest applies to judgments on residential leases)
- Allstate Lien & Recovery Corp. v. Stansbury, 219 Md. App. 575 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) (MCDCA can reach collection fees a creditor had no statutory right to collect)
- Mills v. Galyn Manor Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc., 239 Md. App. 663 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018) (unauthorized assessments/fees may support MCDCA claims)
- Andrews & Lawrence Prof’l Servs., LLC v. Mills, 467 Md. 126 (Md. 2020) (clarifies scope of MCPA exemption for attorney professional services in debt collection)
- Fontell v. Hassett, 870 F. Supp. 2d 395 (D. Md. 2012) (MCDCA addresses collection methods, not challenges to validity of the debt)
- Powell v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, 782 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 2014) (materiality standard for deceptive communications under the FDCPA)
- Creveling v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 376 Md. 72 (Md. 2003) (standards and deference in reviewing class certification decisions)