Morgan v. Vogler Law Firm, P.C.
4:15-cv-01654-SNLJ
E.D. Mo.Oct 3, 2017Background
- Morgan rented and lived in a residential property owned by Reynolds from 2007–2015 and performed repair work that Reynolds credited against rent; no written lease existed.
- Vogler Law Firm (signed by attorney Vincent D. Vogler but allegedly handled by nonlawyer Vincent V. Vogler) sent collection letters in Dec 2014 and Jan 2015 demanding amounts between $21,164.22 and $24,972, though Morgan alleges he owed $0 (and produced an earlier handwritten accounting showing a different amount).
- Reynolds, through Vogler, filed a state collection suit (April 13, 2015) including time‑barred claims; Morgan filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy on June 30, 2015, creating an automatic stay.
- Despite the stay, defendants sought a default judgment and garnishment; the default judgment remained until set aside in October 2015 after Morgan retained counsel; Morgan alleges credit harm, stress, bankruptcy costs, and other damages.
- Defendants failed to timely answer; under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) facts in the complaint (other than damages) were deemed admitted; court considered plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on liability for FDCPA and MMPA claims and granted it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring FDCPA claims | Morgan suffered concrete harms (stress, credit damage, bankruptcy costs) and statutory harms (procedural and substantive FDCPA violations) | Defendants: injuries are only "technical"; credit harm caused by Morgan's bankruptcy, not defendants; no concrete injury | Court: Plaintiff alleged concrete, particularized injury sufficient for standing (Spokeo interpreted but does not bar such statutory injuries) |
| Whether the debt was a "consumer debt" under FDCPA | Debt arose from residential rent (personal/family/household) so is consumer debt | Defendants: it was a commercial/business arrangement (trade of services for reduced rent) | Court: Transaction involved residential property; FDCPA consumer‑debt element satisfied |
| FDCPA violations (verification, misstatement of amount/status, pursuit of time‑barred claims, collection during bankruptcy stay) | Vogler failed to provide adequate verification (§1692g(b)), misstated amounts and legal status (§1692e(2)(A), §1692g(a)), pursued time‑barred claims (§1692e), and violated stay by seeking default/judgment (§1692e(5)) | Defendants disputed facts and causation but had admitted complaint allegations by failing to answer | Court: Found multiple FDCPA violations by Vogler defendants and granted summary judgment on liability |
| MMPA claim against Reynolds | Reynolds engaged in unfair practices by suing on a non‑existent debt, including time‑barred claims, and obtaining a judgment despite bankruptcy stay, causing ascertainable losses (bankruptcy costs, credit harm) | Reynolds contested admissions, argued transaction was commercial and raised estoppel/accrual defenses | Court: MMPA elements met (merchandise = real estate, consumer purpose, ascertainable loss); granted summary judgment on liability against Reynolds |
Key Cases Cited
- Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1962) (summary judgment standard discussion)
- Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 663 F.3d 997 (8th Cir.) (elements of FDCPA claim)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury; statutory violations can be concrete)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional standing elements)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (statutory procedural violations can confer standing)
- Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC, 758 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2014) (continuing collection without proper verification violates §1692g(b))
- Burlington N. R. Co. v. Huddleston, 94 F.3d 1413 (10th Cir. 1996) (admissions by failure to answer)
- Marshall v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2010) (unchallenged facts may be deemed admitted but court must decide legal sufficiency)
- Wilhelm v. Credico, Inc., 519 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2008) (verification/collection obligations under §1692g)
- Ports Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Nixon, 37 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. banc 2001) (broad scope of "unfair practice" under MMPA)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (doctrine of judicial estoppel)
- City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v. Assoc. Elec. Co-op., Inc., 838 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1988) (summary judgment burden on moving party)