Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10754
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Hooks and Moore, New York residents, sued Forman Holt, a debt collector, under the FDCPA §1692g for a collection notice disputing debt in writing.
- The district court granted dismissal for failure to state a claim and the Second Circuit vacated and remanded on §1692g(a)(3).
- The Notice, dated April 5, 2011, alleged that disputes must be notified in writing within 30 days to avoid assuming validity of the debt.
- Section 1692g(a)(3) requires that the notice include a 30-day dispute period but does not explicitly require a writing.
- The district court held that §1692g(a)(3) requires a writing; the appellate court reverses this and remands for further proceedings.
- This is a matter of first impression in the Second Circuit regarding whether a writing is required to dispute the debt under §1692g(a)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1692g(a)(3) impose a writing requirement to dispute the debt? | Hooks argues disputes must be in writing. | Forman Holt contends no writing is required. | No writing requirement; dispute can be oral. |
| Was the district court correct to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)? | Complaint states a §1692g(a)(3) violation. | Claims fail to state a violation. | Vacate and remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991) (support for writing not required under §1692g(a)(3))
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (oral disputes may be sufficient; writing not required by text)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605 (U.S. 2010) (Supreme Court on related FDCPA issue (good faith defense acknowledged))