814 N.W.2d 792
N.D.2012Background
- Weeks, a consumer, sued Collection Center for FDCPA violations over attempting to collect $3,034.21 in interest from Medcenter One for medical services.
- Weeks received medical services from Medcenter between 2002 and 2008; billed $6,752.46; insurance paid $4,698.72; after adjustments Weeks owed $626.48 and paid $453.40, leaving $171.05 unpaid.
- In July 2009, Collection Center, through attorney Geiermann, demanded $4,481.22 for hospital and $171.05 for clinic, plus $3,003.28 in hospital interest and $30.93 in clinic interest.
- Medcenter assigned Weeks’ debt to Collection Center for collection; Weeks claimed the attempt to collect interest violated the FDCPA and North Dakota law.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Collection Center, concluding Weeks’ debt qualified as a legal indebtedness and that prejudgment interest at 6% could be collected; it found no writing showing interest disclosures.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying that prejudgment interest under 47-14-05 may be collected by a medical services provider even without 13-01-15 disclosures, and that prejudgment interest is distinct from the late payment charge under 13-01-14.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest may be collected under 47-14-05 without 13-01-15 disclosures | Weeks argues ND medical providers must disclose to impose any interest; otherwise cannot collect. | Collection Center contends 47-14-05 allows prejudgment interest regardless of 13-01-15 disclosures. | Prejudgment interest may be collected under 47-14-05 without 13-01-15 disclosures. |
| Whether contract or writing evidence shows zero percent interest | Weeks contends Medcenter contracted for zero percent interest by not charging interest in billing and policy. | Collection Center maintains no contract to zero percent interest; silence is not a contractual rate. | No contract to zero percent; 6% prejudgment interest applies. |
| Relation between late payment charges and prejudgment interest | Weeks argues late payment charge regime governs the case and requires disclosures. | Collection Center relies on general prejudgment interest provisions, distinct from late charges. | Late payment charges are distinct from prejudgment interest; 47-14-05 applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Collection Center, Inc., 667 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 2003) (FDCPA applicability in North Dakota context)
- Royal Jewelers, Inc. v. Kopp, 365 N.W.2d 525 (N.D. 1985) (application of 47-14-05 when no contract for interest exists)
- Allen v. Miller, 84 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 1957) (contractual rate silence does not defeat statutory interest after breach)
- Stockman Bank of Montana v. AGSCO, Inc., 747 N.W.2d 516 (N.D. 2008) (prejudgment interest calculated at legal rate absent contract rate)
- T.F. James Co. v. Vakoch, 604 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 2000) (post-maturity interest framework under ND law)
- Red River Wings, Inc. v. Hoot, Inc., 751 N.W.2d 206 (N.D. 2008) (prejudgment interest rate discussion and harmonization with statutes)
- Hirschkorn v. Severson, 319 N.W.2d 475 (N.D. 1982) (statutory interest principles in North Dakota)