Stacey Hart v. Credit Control, LLC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18375
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stacey Hart received an initial voicemail from debt collector Credit Control stating only that it was Credit Control calling, that the call was from a debt collector, and providing a callback number.
- The voicemail was the first contact; subsequent calls left substantially similar voicemails.
- Hart sued under the FDCPA, alleging violations of § 1692e(11) (initial-communication disclosures / “mini-Miranda”) and § 1692d(6) (calls without “meaningful disclosure” of caller identity).
- The district court dismissed: it held the voicemail was not a “communication” for § 1692e(11) purposes, and that the caller provided meaningful disclosure despite not giving her own name.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reversed as to the communication issue (finding the voicemail was an initial “communication” requiring the § 1692e(11) disclosures) and affirmed as to meaningful-disclosure (holding the caller’s name is not required).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a voicemail left by a debt collector is a “communication” under the FDCPA | Hart: voicemail conveyed information regarding a debt and thus is a communication triggering § 1692e(11) | Credit Control: a brief voicemail that reveals no substantive information is not a communication | Voicemail that conveys that a debt collector seeks to speak and provides callback info is a “communication”; initial voicemails trigger § 1692e(11) disclosures |
| Whether failure to include the individual caller’s name violates § 1692d(6) (lack of “meaningful disclosure”) | Hart: “caller’s identity” requires the individual caller’s name | Credit Control: identifying the debt collection company and its business suffices; individual name is ancillary | Meaningful disclosure requires the company name and nature of business; individual caller’s name is not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013) (use ordinary statutory meaning in construction)
- Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010) (FDCPA’s purpose to eliminate abusive debt collection)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich L.P.A., 559 U.S. 573 (2010) (FDCPA imposes civil liability for prohibited collection practices)
- Edwards v. Niagra Credit Solutions, Inc., 584 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2009) (voicemails conveying identity and callback info constitute communications)