Maureen Van Hoven v. Buckles & Buckles, P.L.C.
947 F.3d 889
6th Cir.
2020

Background

  • Plaintiff Maureen Van Hoven defaulted on a credit-card judgment; creditor Buckles & Buckles filed multiple Michigan post-judgment writs of garnishment and added $15 filing fees and, in later requests, costs from prior unsuccessful garnishments.
  • Van Hoven did not contest the garnishments in Michigan state court; she filed a federal class action under the FDCPA alleging Buckles made false or misleading legal representations in the garnishment requests.
  • The district court certified a class, found liability, awarded about $3,662 in class damages and $186,680 in attorney’s fees; Buckles appealed.
  • The Sixth Circuit held it had jurisdiction (Rooker–Feldman inapplicable) and examined whether statements about state-law entitlement to costs could be FDCPA violations.
  • The court ruled that seeking current filing costs in a garnishment request was a reasonable/legal position under Michigan law at the time (not an FDCPA violation), but including costs from prior failed garnishments was a false representation; it remanded to allow Buckles to prove a bona fide-error (procedural) defense and remanded class/ damages/fees for reconsideration.
  • Judge Stranch dissented: she would have affirmed the district court, reasoning the frontloading practice was unlawful under Michigan Court Rules and the FDCPA imposes strict liability for such misrepresentations.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman Van Hoven: federal court may decide independent FDCPA claim despite state garnishment forms Buckles: FDCPA claim is an improper attack on state-court garnishment process/judgment Rooker–Feldman does not bar the suit; garnishment writs were ministerial and her injury arose from defendants’ conduct, not a state-court judgment
Whether requesting current filing costs in writs violated FDCPA Van Hoven: listing current filing fees as "postjudgment costs accrued to date" misstates recoverable costs Buckles: Rule language reasonably permits inclusion of costs incurred by the filing; position was reasonable under Michigan law Inclusion of current filing fees was not a false/misleading representation; reasonable interpretation of Michigan rules at the time
Whether including costs from prior failed garnishments violated FDCPA Van Hoven: charging costs of unsuccessful garnishments was unlawful and misleading Buckles: such inclusions were mistakes of fact and/or clerical errors, not actionable misrepresentations Including costs of prior failed garnishments was a false representation under the FDCPA
Availability of bona fide-error defense / evidentiary issues Van Hoven: Buckles failed to preserve evidence of procedures, so defense should be barred Buckles: had procedures to prevent erroneous inclusion and should get chance to prove them Remanded so district court can determine whether Buckles can invoke bona fide-error defense for mistaken inclusion of failed-garnishment costs; parties may develop record; prior class/fees/ damages vacated for reconsideration

Key Cases Cited

  • Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (limits lower-court review of state-court judgments)
  • D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (same)
  • Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus., 544 U.S. 280 (defines narrow Rooker–Feldman scope)
  • Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (cautions against overextending Rooker–Feldman)
  • Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (FDCPA covers lawyers acting as debt collectors)
  • Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (limits bona fide-error defense for mistakes of federal law)
  • Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, 434 F.3d 432 (6th Cir.) (FDCPA suit against garnishment-related misrepresentations not barred by Rooker–Feldman)
  • Alexander v. Rosen, 804 F.3d 1203 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing claims that target defendant’s conduct vs. state-court determinations)
  • Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 561 F.3d 588 (6th Cir.) (materiality requirement for FDCPA misrepresentations)
  • Currier v. First Resolution Inv. Corp., 762 F.3d 529 (6th Cir.) (FDCPA covers some misstatements of state law but not every state-law error)
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thrifty Rent‑A‑Car Sys., Inc., 249 F.3d 450 (6th Cir.) (how to predict state supreme court rulings)
  • Hemmingsen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., 674 F.3d 814 (8th Cir.) (advancing legal position later rejected not necessarily FDCPA violation)
  • Miljkovic v. Shafritz & Dinkin, P.A., 791 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.) (legal positions in state filings generally not actionable under FDCPA absent objective baselessness)
  • Philips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 736 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir.) (suing on time-barred debt can be objectively baseless and actionable)
  • Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir.) (garnishment against a current-paying debtor can be baseless)
  • BE & K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (litigation losing does not alone make it false)
  • Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (baseless litigation not protected by petitioning rights)
Read the full case