Crystal Hopkins v. Deneweth Dugan & Parfitt Pc, 327741

Background

Crystal and Christina Hopkins leased residential property and fell behind on rent; after they vacated in Sept. 2013 landlord Homestead sought the unpaid rent and applied the security deposit.
Defendant law firm Deneweth, Dugan & Parfitt (on Homestead’s behalf) sent two letters that included itemized accountings (spreadsheet of rent due, payments received with check numbers/dates, and copies of checks) and threatened suit if balance not paid.
Plaintiffs disputed the debt in writing within the statutorily prescribed period; defendant nevertheless filed a collection suit in district court and obtained judgment for Homestead.
Plaintiffs then sued defendant alleging failure to verify the debt under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (FDCPA) and related violation of Michigan’s MRCPA, MCL 445.252(e).
Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), attaching the accountings; the circuit court granted the motion, finding the accountings satisfied the FDCPA verification requirement.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing waiver, scope errors, concessions of liability, disputed accuracy of the accountings, and denial of a jury trial; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant verified the debt under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b)	Hopkins: verification inadequate because defendant did not provide months/dates of missed payments and admitted it was "impossible" to match payments to months	Deneweth: provided itemized accountings and copies of checks that allow reliable calculation of the debt—this satisfies verification	Held: Verification adequate; itemized accounting permitted plaintiff to dispute the obligation; summary judgment for defendant affirmed
Whether defendant waived the verification defense by not pleading it expressly	Hopkins: failure to plead verification as a defense waived it	Deneweth: answer denied plaintiffs’ allegation that it failed to verify and described the accounting provided, sufficiently notifying plaintiffs of the defense	Held: No waiver; answer reasonably apprised plaintiffs that defendant contended it verified the debt
Whether court could consider verification argument raised in reply / scope of the motion	Hopkins: issue outside motion scope and first raised in reply	Deneweth: verification raised in main motion and argued at hearing; reply only expanded earlier points	Held: Court properly considered the verification evidence and arguments; no error in considering reply expansion
Whether factual disputes precluded summary disposition / right to jury trial	Hopkins: accounting accuracy disputed; factual issues require jury	Deneweth: accountings are documentary, undisputed, and plaintiffs presented no evidence to contradict them	Held: No genuine issue of material fact; summary disposition appropriate; no violation of jury right because facts undisputed

Key Cases Cited

Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC, 758 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2014) (itemized accountings are often the best means to verify a debt under §1692g(b))
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (standard for reviewing MCR 2.116(C)(10) motions)
Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd., 475 Mich. 502 (2006) (summary disposition standard — no genuine issue of material fact)
Debano-Griffin v. Lake Co., 493 Mich. 167 (2013) (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration LLC, 498 Mich. 518 (2015) (definition and scope of defenses in pleadings)
Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 292 Mich. App. 359 (2011) (notice pleading sufficiency for informing parties of defenses)
Wilson v. Taylor, 457 Mich. 232 (1998) (parties must support asserted positions with authority)
Krohn v. Home-Owners Ins. Co., 490 Mich. 145 (2011) (distinguishing legal questions from jury issues)
Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko, 444 Mich. 579 (1994) (judiciary’s duty to decide legal issues)