Sarah McIvor v. Credit Control Services, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22787
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- McIvor sued Credit Control Services under the FDCPA in Minnesota federal court for allegedly failing to report her dispute to TransUnion.
- McIvor disputed a $242 debt online with TransUnion on April 2, 2013 and claimed TransUnion notified Credit Control.
- Credit Control allegedly updated its information to TransUnion on April 20, 2013 without stating the debt was disputed; TransUnion certified to McIvor on April 21, 2013.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for Credit Control, concluding the claim required both false/deceptive conduct and connection to debt collection.
- McIvor appeals, arguing Credit Control’s omission rendered the communication false/deceptive under §1692e(8) and that the communication was in connection with the collection of a debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the communication was false, deceptive, or misleading under §1692e(8). | McIvor asserts omission misled TransUnion. | Credit Control contends no misstatement occurred to a consumer recipient. | No plausible misrepresentation; not misleading to TransUnion as the recipient. |
| Whether the communication was in connection with the collection of a debt. | Credit Control was attempting to induce payment. | Communication was to comply with FCRA reinvestigation, not to collect. | Communication not in connection with collection; governed by FCRA, not FDCPA. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a FDCPA claim given the FCRA context. | McIvor alleged FDCPA violation due to disclosure omission. | Allegations do not show animating debt-collection purpose. | Complaint fails to state a §1692e claim; affirmed district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemmingsen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., 674 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2012) (evaluate statements through recipient’s perspective; not actionable if not misleading to recipient)
- Peters v. Gen. Serv. Bureau, Inc., 277 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2002) (unsophisticated consumer view to assess misleading nature)
- Wilhelm v. Credico, Inc., 519 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2008) (omission of known dispute when reporting credit information may be unlawful under §1692e(8))
- Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (D. Minn. 2010) (distinguishes voluntary reporting from required verification under FCRA)
- Grden v. Leikin Ingber & Winters PC, 643 F.3d 169 (6th Cir. 2011) (animating purpose to induce payment is required for a debt-collection link)
- Simon v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 732 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2013) (requires connection to collection beyond mere communication)