Hayes v. Find Track Locate, Inc.
60 F. Supp. 3d 1144
D. Kan.2014Background
- FDL brought KCPA and FDCPA claims against FTL, Neeley, and ACA arising from telephone and locating efforts about a truck financed by ACA.
- Richard L. Hayes purchased the truck; Ginger Hayes and Richard W. Hayes are relatives but not signatories to the purchase agreement.
- Hayes family members alleged deceptive or unconscionable KCPA practices and FDCPA violations.
- FTL moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing lack of consumer/creditor status and lack of standing; sought relief on other grounds.
- Court addressed subject-matter jurisdiction/standing issues and converted the motion to summary-judgment standard for decision; determined real-party-in-interest status under Chapter 13 differs from Chapter 7.
- Court determined Ginger and Richard L. Hayes as real parties in interest; ruled on KCPA and FDCPA standing and supplier status, and on whether FTL is a debt collector under the FDCPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ginger Hayes and Richard W. Hayes have standing as consumers under the KCPA | Hayes family members were involved in the truck purchase/delivery | Only Richard L. Hayes was the consumer; others not consumers | Ginger and Richard W. Hayes lack standing under KCPA |
| Whether FTL is a 'supplier' under the KCPA | FTL participates in enforcement of a consumer transaction | FTL is a tracking/locating company, not a supplier | FTL is a supplier under the KCPA for purposes of the KCPA claims by Ginger and Richard W. Hayes; merits addressed further for Richard L. Hayes–see partial denial of some claims. |
| Whether Richard L. Hayes entered into a consumer transaction with FTL; standing for KCPA | Miller allows claims even if not party to original transaction | Not required to have contract with FTL; Miller analysis applicable | Richard L. Hayes may pursue KCPA claims despite not contracting with FTL; court requires summary judgment for some claims as to Ginger and Richard W., but not Richard L. Hayes. |
| FDCPA applicability: whether FTL is a 'debt collector' and whether Hayes is a 'consumer' | FTL as debt collector due to repossession activities | FTL is primarily a repossession locator, not a debt collector; 1692f(6) not satisfied | FTL not a debt collector under the general FDCPA; 1692f(6) not violated; grants summary judgment on FDCPA claims |
| Whether the bankruptcy status affects standing/real-party-in-interest to prosecute | Debtors can pursue pre-petition claims as real parties in interest | Trustee owns estate; standing limited | Ginger and Richard L. Hayes are real parties in interest; bankruptcy status did not deprive them of standing under the KCPA/FDCPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Midwest Serv. Bureau of Topeka, Inc., 229 Kan. 322 (1981) (debt-collection liability where debt arose from a consumer transaction)
- Smith v. Rockett, 522 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2008) (standing/real party in interest considerations in bankruptcy context)
- First Nat'l Bank of Anthony v. Dunning, 18 Kan.App.2d 518 (1993) (consumers under KCPA must be party to the contract)
- State ex rel. Stephan v. Bhd. Bank & Trust Co., 8 Kan.App.2d 57 (1982) (liberal construction of KCPA in favor of consumer)