Dunham v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24864
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- PRA purchases debt portfolios, including a James Dunham obligation, from Credigy Receivables in 2008.
- PRA sent a dunning notice March 4, 2008; Dunham disputed the debt, demanding validation.
- PRA mailed a D4 validation letter March 18, 2008 with debtor details and an affidavit.
- Dunham noticed the last four digits matched a different James Dunham; he did not respond.
- District court held Dunham non-consumer under FDCPA § 1692a(3); granted PRA summary judgment.
- Dunham appealed contending he is a consumer and PRA failed to verify the debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Dunham a 'consumer' under FDCPA §1692a(3)? | Dunham is alleged to owe; statute covers mistaken targets. | Dunham was not obligated to pay the debt; not a consumer. | Dunham qualifies as a consumer; district court erred. |
| Was PRA's debt a FV 'debt' under FDCPA, affecting consumer status? | If consumer, the debt is within FDCPA's scope. | The misidentified James Dunham means not the one obligated. | Not dispositive; consumer status supports FDCPA reach. |
| Did PRA sufficiently verify the debt under §1692g(b)? | Verification must come from the original creditor; more done. | D4 letter with identifying details suffices to verify debt. | PRA's verification was sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir.1999) (verification need not be exhaustive; adequate to show amount owed)
- Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs. Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.2006) (verification standard less stringent than full creditor contact)
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir.1991) (debt verification can be satisfied by summary data)
- Hall v. Lhaco, Inc., 140 F.3d 1190 (8th Cir.1998) (standing and consumer status considerations in FDCPA actions)
- Richmond v. Higgins, 435 F.3d 825 (8th Cir.2006) (FDCPA aims to curb abusive debt collection practices)