Maureen Riccio v. Sentry Credit Inc
954 F.3d 582
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- Maureen Riccio fell behind on payments; Sentry Credit bought her account and sent a §1692g FDCPA validation notice.
- The notice restated subsections (a)(3)–(a)(5) but offered multiple contact options and did not explicitly require disputes to be in writing.
- Riccio sued under the FDCPA, alleging the notice violated §1692g(a)(3) because it did not require written disputes; the district court granted judgment on the pleadings for Sentry.
- The Third Circuit (en banc) reviewed whether §1692g(a)(3) requires written disputes and whether to overrule the panel decision Graziano v. Harrison.
- The court held §1692g(a)(3) permits oral disputes, overruled Graziano, and affirmed because Sentry’s notice tracked the statutory text.
- The court applied the new rule retroactively to cases on direct review and explained collectors acting under prior Graziano precedent would not necessarily be penalized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1692g(a)(3) requires disputes to be in writing | Grazio (Riccio) argued (a)(3) must be read to require written disputes so collectors must verify and cease collection | Sentry argued (a)(3) says only “dispute” and (a)(4)/(a)(5)/(b) separately impose written-notice consequences | The court held (a)(3) permits oral disputes; only (a)(4),(a)(5), and (b) require written notice for immediate verification/cessation |
| Whether Graziano v. Harrison should be retained under stare decisis | Riccio urged adherence to Graziano, a long-standing panel decision requiring written disputes | Sentry argued Graziano is inconsistent with textualist Supreme Court doctrine and conflicts with other circuits | The en banc court overruled Graziano, adopting the majority-circuit view that (a)(3) allows oral disputes |
| Retroactivity of the overruling | Riccio asked the court to limit retroactivity so Graziano still governs her claim | Sentry argued federal precedent controls and the new rule applies to cases on direct review | The court applied the new rule retroactively to this case, citing Supreme Court retroactivity principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991) (earlier panel holding that disputes must be in writing; overruled)
- Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (declines to read an omitted word into statute; enforces plain statutory text)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (different statutory wording in adjacent provisions suggests deliberate meaning)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (statute’s plain language governs absent absurdity)
- Clark v. Absolute Collection Serv., Inc., 741 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2014) (circuit decision rejecting a writing requirement for §1692g(a)(3))
- Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC, 717 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 2013) (same)
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin. Inc., 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (same)
- Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (federal decisions apply retroactively to cases on direct review)