964 F. Supp. 2d 514
D. Maryland2013Background
- Fletcher sued M&D for FDCPA violations arising from Barnside HOA debt collection efforts.
- Barnside, a Maryland condo association, retained M&D for collection of past-due HOA assessments.
- M&D sent a May 6, 2011 debt collection letter alleging $1,060, including $300 in collection/expense fees.
- The Letter stated rights under FDCPA § 1692g and attached a Notice of Rights; it also warned that failure to act would lead to a lien.
- Fletcher later sought a payment plan; a lien was filed; M&D's attorney’s fees of $300 were included in the amount sought.
- The court granted in part and denied in part M&D’s summary judgment motion, with cross-motions resolving Counts I–VII and concluding Counts I, III, IV, V, VI favor M&D and Counts II and VII favor Fletcher.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Letter properly informed of the 30-day validation period | Fletcher argues the Letter overshadowed the 30-day period | M&D contends the Notice plus Letter complied | Counts I and III granted for M&D (no violation) |
| Whether the Letter’s call-to-action to dispute by telephone overshadowed the FDCPA notice | Fletcher posits the phone-dispute instruction overrides the written notice | M&D claims no overshadowing under court precedent | Count II denied (overshadowing occurred) |
| Whether Fletcher could dispute only part of the debt | Fletcher contends partial-dispute rights were not clearly conveyed | M&D argues the Notice allowed partial disputes | Count IV granted (no partial-dispute violation) |
| Whether the $300 attorney’s fees were authorized and properly claimed | Fees were improper if not authorized or reasonable | By-laws authorized attorney’s fees; Drury's time reasonable | Count V granted for M&D (fees authorized) |
| Whether M&D violated the Maryland licensing statute by employing non-lawyer collectors | Ms. Ryan and others engaged in collection activity without MCA-LA license | Record shows no non-lawyer primarily engaged in debt collection | Count VI granted for M&D (no license violation shown) |
| Whether the debt overstatement violated § 1692e(2)(A) and was subject to bona fide error defense | Overstatement of debt was improper and not protected by bona fide error | Error could be defended if procedures reasonably adapted to avoid it | Count VII denied for M&D; granted for Fletcher (bona fide error not established). |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Henderson-Webb, Inc., 81 F.Supp.2d 582 (D.Md.1999) (FDCPA threshold and § 1692g provisions; strict liability)
- Miller v. Payco-Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 943 F.2d 482 (4th Cir.1991) (Notices must convey rights effectively; not overshadowed)
- National Fin. Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir.1996) (Least sophisticated debtor standard; de minimis variations allowed)
- Long v. McMullen, Drury & Pinder, P.A., 2011 WL 4458849 (D.Md.2011) (Court previously held letter compliant with §1692g(a) modest variation)
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir.1991) (Inherent writing requirement in §1692g(a)(3))
- Wallace v. Capital One Bank, 168 F.Supp.2d 526 (D.Md.2001) (Affirmed writing requirement under §1692g(a)(3))