Rudnick v. Rode
2012 ND 167
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Debt to Medcenter One, later assigned to Credico for collection.
- Dill, Credico in-house counsel, communicated with Falkensteins.
- March 2009 judgment granted to Credico for the debt including interest.
- September 2010 suit alleging FDCPA violations: (a) improper pre-judgment interest, (b) overstated amount told to real estate agent; discovery occurred; summary judgment granted to Collectors on the pre-judgment issue and FDCPA claim.
- District court held pre-judgment interest barred by res judicata; real estate agent communications did not violate FDCPA; complaint did not allege incorrect judgment amount to Steven Falkenstein; Falkensteins did not amend the complaint.
- Appeal affirmed; dissent argues misapplication of least-sophisticated-consumer standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata barred pre-judgment interest claim | Falkenstein contends pre-judgment interest raised new FDCPA issue | Collectors argue res judicata bars pre-judgment interest claim | Yes; claim barred by res judicata |
| Whether real estate agent call violated FDCPA | Real estate call conveyed inaccurate debt details | Collector communications to non-consumer through agent do not trigger FDCPA | No FDCPA violation |
| Whether complaint alleged incorrect judgment amount to Steven Falkenstein | Complaint fairly raised misstatement of amount to Steven | Complaint lacked specific allegation; not properly before court | No; not adequately pleaded |
| Whether Falkensteins implicitly moved to amend by answering MSJ | Implicit amendment allowed by Leet v. Minot rationale | No prejudice; district court acted within discretion | District court did not abuse discretion; no amendment recognized |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Collection Ctr., Inc., 2003 ND 128, 667 N.W.2d 567 (ND 2003) (least-sophisticated-consumer standard applied to FDCPA)
- Leet v. City of Minot, 2006 ND 191, 721 N.W.2d 398 (ND 2006) (affirmative defenses raised on summary judgment can be treated as amendments if no prejudice)
- Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., 2011 ND 95, 797 N.W.2d 770 (ND 2011) (summary judgment de novo review standard reference)
- Mo. Breaks, LLC v. Burns, 2010 ND 221, 791 N.W.2d 33 (ND 2010) (precedent on summary judgment standards)