Elizabeth Meadows vs Frankliln Collection Service, Inc.
414 F. App'x 230
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Meadows sued Franklin for FDCPA and TCPA violations based on calls to her residence about debts not owed by her.
- From May 2006 to March 2009 Franklin called Meadows about the Tidmores and Elizabeth Taylor debts, though Meadows did not owe them.
- Meadows testified she received about 300 calls over two and a half years, sometimes up to three per day, mostly via automatic dialer.
- Meadows informed Franklin in May 2006 that she was not the debtor and the Tidmores did not live with her, but calls continued.
- Franklin claimed it used follow-up calls to correct numbers; Meadows disputed the reasonableness of such follow-up.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Franklin on all claims, which the Eleventh Circuit partly reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA §1692d(5) harassment | Meadows: continuous calls to non-debtor with intent to harass | Franklin: calls were reasonable follow-up and not intended to harass | Genuine dispute as to intent; forged summary judgment improper |
| TCPA §227(b)(1)(B) prerecorded calls exemption | Meadows: non-debtor status negates exemptions | Franklin: exemptions apply to debt collection calls with established business relationships | Exemptions apply; calls not violative |
| TCPA §227(c)(5) telephone solicitations | Meadows: repeated calls constitute telephone solicitations | Franklin: debt-collection calls are not solicitations under FCC rules | Calls did not constitute solicitations; no violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1985) (harassment context for §1692d claims)
- Abel v. S. Shuttle Servs., Inc., 620 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2010) (facts viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)
- Capone v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 592 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)