White v. Sherman Financial Group, LLC
984 F. Supp. 2d 841
E.D. Tenn.2013Background
- Plaintiff filed FDCPA lawsuit, alleging defendants purchased debt from Citibank and then engaged in collection practices that violated the FDCPA.
- Defendants are Sherman, LVNV, Resurgent (servicer), Griffin (agent for LVNV), and Buffaloe (law firm collecting on LVNV’s behalf).
- Buffaloe filed a Knox County General Sessions civil warrant with an attached sworn affidavit alleging a specific debt amount; Griffin swore to the debt amount.
- Buffaloe/Resurgent/LVNV used their collection process through Buffaloe, including letters and a later suit, asserting the debt and statutory interest.
- Plaintiff contends the actions show a scheme to file suits without proper evidence or intent to collect, and seeks various FDCPA claims; the court analyzes licensing, disclosures, venue, and vicarious liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA claim based on filing the civil warrant and affidavit | White claims the filing lacked competent evidence and intent to collect | Defendants provided an affidavit and records showing debt existence and amount | Granted in part: no genuine issue; warrants/affidavits sufficient to defend these claims |
| Licensing requirements under Tennessee law | LVNV violated FDCPA by failing to license | Buffaloe handled collection; Clarification Statement shows exemption from licensing | LVNV entitled to summary judgment; no FDCPA violation on licensing |
| FDCPA disclosures in the civil warrant and affidavit (1692e(ll) and 1692g(a)(3)-(5)) | Civil warrant/affidavit were not formal pleadings; disclosures missing | Civil warrant/affidavit are formal pleadings; disclosures exempt | Granted: civil warrant/affidavit qualify as formal pleadings; no 1692e(ll) or 1692g(a)(3)-(5) violations |
| Respondeat superior/vicarious liability for Buffaloe’s FDCPA violations | LVNV should be liable for Buffaloe’s actions | Agency relationship not established or insufficient to impute liability | LVNV may be vicariously liable for Buffaloe’s FDCPA violations; summary judgment improper |
| Venue (1692i(a)(2)) and bona fide error defense to filing in Knox County | Filed in wrong venue; debt contract likely not Knox County | Good faith address verification; bona fide error defense may apply | Genuine issue for jury on bona fide error defense and venue; not resolved at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuels v. Midland Funding, LLC, 921 F.Supp.2d 1321 (S.D. Ala. 2013) (discussed but not controlling here (discussed for contrast))
- Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 76 F.3d 103 (6th Cir. 1996) (limits vicarious liability for non-debt-collector principals)
- Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, 15 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1994) (principal liability for attorney actions under FDCPA)