William Brown, III v. Van Ru Credit Corporation
804 F.3d 740
6th Cir.2015Background
- Brown owed a student loan; Van Ru Credit Corporation was allegedly retained to collect it.
- Van Ru mailed one letter to Brown’s business seeking payroll info, then left a voicemail in the business’s general mailbox asking payroll to call back and giving Van Ru’s name, a toll-free number, and a reference number.
- An employee (Harris) heard the voicemail; Brown alleges Harris knew personal calls to the business were intended for Brown and that Van Ru is a debt collector.
- Brown sued under the FDCPA, alleging Van Ru violated §1692c(b) (third‑party communications) and §1692g(a) (failure to provide written notice after an initial communication), plus state-law claims.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for Van Ru and denied leave to amend; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the voicemail was not a “communication” under the FDCPA because it did not convey information regarding a debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Van Ru’s voicemail to a third party was a “communication” "regarding a debt" under the FDCPA (§1692a(2)) and thus violated §1692c(b) | The voicemail (company name including “Credit,” a reference number, and call‑back info) sufficiently conveyed information regarding Brown’s debt to a third party | The message merely requested a payroll call‑back and did not mention debt or the debtor; it did not convey information about a debt and so falls outside the FDCPA’s definition of “communication” | Affirmed: voicemail did not at minimum imply existence of a debt and thus was not a “communication” under §1692a(2); no §1692c(b) violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 668 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2011) (third‑party employment verification fax did not reasonably convey information regarding debt)
- Tucker v. Middleburg‑Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard of de novo review for district court rulings on pleadings)
- Thaddeus‑X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (argument forfeiture rules on appellate briefing)
- Bickel v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 96 F.3d 151 (6th Cir. 1996) (procedural waiver principles on appeal)