Grden v. Leikin Ingber & Winters PC
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13086
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Grden received medical treatment from Oakwood Healthcare and incurred debt later pursued by Leikin in Michigan court.
- Leikin filed a collection action and attached a document labeled Combined Affidavit of Open Account and Motion for Default Judgment.
- Grden had largely paid over time but owed a reduced principal balance; by Dec 2008, principal balance was $536.35 and total due including interest was $678.27.
- Leikin served Grden with the collection complaint and the motion for default judgment even though Grden had not missed a deadline to respond.
- Afterward, Grden called Leikin to verify the balance; Leikin inaccurately stated $1,016.20 and sent a ledger showing that amount.
- Grden filed suit in federal court alleging FDCPA violations due to the allegedly deceptive default motion and the incorrect balance statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default-motion was deceptive under the FDCPA | Grden argues the motion misleads unsophisticated consumers. | Leikin asserts the motion accurately states the condition for relief. | Grden: motion could mislead; summary judgment reversed on this issue. |
| Whether the balance statements were in connection with debt collection | Grden contends statements were in connection with collection because misleading balance reflects debt. | Leikin argues statements were ministerial responses to an inquiry and not aimed at inducing payment. | Affirmed district court on balance statements; not in connection to collect payment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 569 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2009) (definition of least-sophisticated-consumer standard)
- Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 561 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2009) (objective reasonableness of unsophisticated consumer)
- Kistner v. Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky, LLC, 518 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2008) (deception can arise from ambiguity)
- Gburek v. Litton Loan Serv. LP, 614 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2010) (communication must have intent to induce payment to be actionable)
- Muha v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 558 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2009) (deceptive impact of wording in debt collection)
- Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2010) (summary-judgment standard and review)