Clark v. Absolute Collection Service, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1939
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Dana and David Clark incurred medical debts referred to Absolute Collection Service (ACS), which sent collection notices to them.
- The notices stated the debt "shall be assumed valid unless disputed in writing within thirty (30) days."
- The Clarks sued ACS under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging the notice unlawfully required disputes to be in writing (violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3)) and that the writing requirement was a deceptive practice (§ 1692e(10)).
- ACS moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing § 1692g(a)(3) inherently requires written disputes; the district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether § 1692g(a)(3) permits oral disputes or imposes a writing requirement, reversing the district court and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1692g(a)(3) requires disputes be in writing | The Clarks: notice unlawfully limited disputes to written form, denying oral dispute rights | ACS: § 1692g(a)(3) should be read to include an inherent writing requirement to avoid confusion and preserve related protections | Court: § 1692g(a)(3) does not contain a writing requirement; oral disputes are permitted |
| Whether reading § 1692g(a)(3) as allowing oral disputes yields absurd or inconsistent results | Clarks: plain text allows oral disputes and yields coherent protections | ACS: oral disputes would confuse consumers and undermine protections in §§ 1692g(a)(4), (a)(5), and (b) | Court: permitting oral disputes does not produce absurd results and preserves independent meaning of § 1692g(a)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991) (held § 1692g(a)(3) contains a writing requirement)
- Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC, 717 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 2013) (held § 1692g(a)(3) permits oral disputes and explains bifurcated statutory scheme)
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluded § 1692g(a)(3) allows oral disputes and identified protections that follow from an oral dispute)
- Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (statutory interpretation: when text is plain courts must enforce it)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (canon: disparate inclusion or exclusion of statutory language is intentional)