St. Pierre v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.
898 F.3d 351
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Thomas E. St. Pierre, a New Jersey vehicle owner and E‑ZPass accountholder, received a debt-collection letter in an envelope whose glassine window displayed his name, address, account number, and a QR code.
- E‑ZPass accounts are prepaid; when St. Pierre’s account fell into arrears, the account was assigned to Retrieval‑Masters Creditors Bureau (RMCB), which sent collection communications.
- St. Pierre sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging the envelope disclosure violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8) (prohibiting language/symbols other than the debt collector’s address on an envelope).
- The District Court found St. Pierre had Article III standing but dismissed the FDCPA claim because unpaid highway tolls are not a FDCPA "debt."
- St. Pierre appealed the merits; RMCB cross‑appealed the standing ruling. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding unpaid tolls are not FDCPA "debt."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether St. Pierre has Article III standing based on the envelope disclosure | Douglass controls: disclosure of account number through a window causes a concrete privacy injury sufficient for standing | Spokeo allegedly raises doubts, but does not negate Douglass | Plaintiff has standing; disclosure of account number is a cognizable injury |
| Whether unpaid highway tolls qualify as a FDCPA "debt" (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)) | Toll liability arises from a voluntary transaction (driving) and/or E‑ZPass contract, so it is a consumer "debt" for personal purposes | Tolls fund public highway services and are akin to taxes/public fees, not primarily for personal, family, or household purposes | Unpaid highway tolls are not "debt" under the FDCPA |
| If tolls arise from a transaction, whether the subject of that transaction is "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes" | Access to roads is a personal benefit to the driver, so tolls are for personal purposes | The services paid for (construction, maintenance, operation of highways) are public and confer primarily public benefits | The subject is public in nature; not primarily for personal/family/household purposes |
| Whether an E‑ZPass contract or collection assignment converts toll obligations into FDCPA‑covered debt | Contract terms (fees, penalties, membership) may create separate consumer debts | The original source of obligation (statutory toll liability) controls; collection mechanisms don’t convert the nature of the obligation | Collection method or assignment does not transform statutory toll liability into FDCPA "debt" (though separate contract‑based charges might be) |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Harris, 626 F.2d 275 (3d Cir. 1980) (taxes and obligations arising from legal status are not FDCPA "debt")
- Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163 (3d Cir. 1987) (obligations arising from alleged tort liability are not FDCPA "debt")
- Pollice v. National Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379 (3d Cir. 2000) (distinguishes property taxes from utility charges; consensual utility services can be FDCPA "debt")
- Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd., 396 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2005) (municipal utility obligations incurred by voluntary use are FDCPA "debt")
- Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2014) (disclosure of account number through an envelope window implicates privacy and supports FDCPA standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (clarifies requirement that statutory or intangible harms be sufficiently "concrete" for Article III standing)