274 A.3d 318
D.C.2022Background
- Plaintiff Reginald Scott (D.C. resident) opened a FedChoice credit‑card account governed by Maryland law, defaulted in 2018, and was contacted about the debt in Feb–Jun 2019.
- Alleged unlawful collection practices by FedChoice and employee Alexandria Kelly: multiple dunning letters (one stating "FIVE DAYS" to settle), repeated phone/letter/in‑person contacts after being told Scott had counsel, demands while Scott was on dialysis/in hospital, and (abandoned on appeal) conditioning withdrawal of funds on partial payment.
- Scott sued under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA), principally § 14‑202(6) (prohibiting communications that abuse or harass) and implicitly § 14‑202(11) (incorporating FDCPA protections for communications when consumer is represented).
- The trial court granted a 12(b)(6) dismissal: letters were not abusive given the contract; account freeze/application of funds was contractual; post‑counsel contacts were not per se prohibited; no ongoing calls after hospitalization; and Kelly was dismissed individually because she acted within the scope of employment and (allegedly) committed no intentional tort.
- The court of appeals reversed: (1) the dunning letters alone were not abusive, but (2) allegations that FedChoice/Kelly continued to contact Scott after notice of counsel and made demands while he was hospitalized/medicated stated plausible MCDCA violations; and (3) Kelly is potentially individually liable under the MCDCA because individuals who personally commit or participate in statutory torts are liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether threats/"notice before suit" letters violated §14‑202(6) as abusive/harassing | Letters threatened suit and one demanded settlement within five days, amounting to harassment | Credit agreement warned of possible legal action on default; truthful threats of lawful collection are not abusive | Letters alone were not plausibly abusive; dismissal as to that theory affirmed |
| Whether continued direct communications after notice of counsel violated MCDCA (and FDCPA §805 via §14‑202(11)) | FedChoice/Kelly kept contacting Scott after Summit Law Firm notified them to communicate only with counsel | Defendants argued direct contact after notice does not automatically violate §14‑202(6) and relied on contract/collection rights | Allegations that defendants continued direct contact after notice of counsel plausibly state a violation; survives 12(b)(6) |
| Whether contacting/demanding payment while Scott was hospitalized/medicated violated §14‑202(6) | Calls/demands while on dialysis and hospitalized (and noting medication) could constitute abuse/harassment | Defendants said isolated calls or calls made without persistence do not amount to actionable harassment | Facts alleging demands while hospitalized/medicated, together with prior counsel notice, are plausible §14‑202(6) violations; survives 12(b)(6) |
| Whether employee Kelly is individually liable for MCDCA violations committed as agent of FedChoice | Kelly, as an individual "collector," can be personally liable for statutory torts she personally committed or participated in | Trial court said agent acting within scope of employment not personally liable absent an intentional tort or other grounds | Court held Kelly may be sued individually: MCDCA's definition of "collector" includes individuals and agents who personally commit statutory torts |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews & Lawrence Prof’l Servs. v. Mills, 223 A.3d 947 (Md. 2020) (describing MCDCA as a remedial consumer‑protection statute to be liberally construed)
- Alexander v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., 23 F.4th 370 (4th Cir. 2022) (Maryland statute can incorporate FDCPA substantive protections even if defendant is not an FDCPA "debt collector")
- Askew v. HRFC, LLC, 810 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing truthful/future threats of legal action from false claims that suit already filed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Fontell v. Hassett, 891 F. Supp. 2d 739 (D. Md. 2012) (employees of a debt collector can be held personally liable under §14‑202 for statutory violations)