Dianne Roden Bradley v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Bradley and Calma incurred medical debts referred to Franklin for collection.
- Urology added a 33 1/3% collection fee to Bradley’s and a 30% to Calma’s, with Franklin handling collections.
- Bradley’s contract with Urology required payment of actual costs of collection, not a percentage-based fee.
- Bradley paid the full amount including the collection fee and reserved his right to recover overcharges; Calma did not appeal the fee dispute.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Franklin on most claims; appellate court reverses only as to Bradley’s §1692f FDCPA claim and affirms otherwise.
- The court analyzes whether the percentage-based collection fee is supported by the underlying debt agreement under §1692f(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a percentage-based collection fee violates §1692f(1). | Bradley argues the 33 1/3% fee exceeds costs of collection and isn’t contractually authorized. | Franklin/Bradley argue the fee is permitted under the contract or related agreements. | Yes, fee violates §1692f(1); reversed on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kojetin v. CU Recovery, Inc., 212 F.3d 1318 (8th Cir. 2000) (collection fee based on percentage requires express agreement tied to costs)
- Seeger v. AFNI, Inc., 548 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2008) (permits percentage fees if contract expressly allows and tied to collection efforts)
- Capone v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 592 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standards; appellate review)
- Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2009) (favorable construction of facts for non-movant)