New servicer does not have to provide consumer with second validation notice under the FDCPA if it was already provided by prior servicer

In Oppong v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 02-2149 (E.D. Pa., July 24, 2008), debtor sued Wells Fargo, the new servicer, for failing to provide her with a fresh validation notice before taking actions to collect debt. The court concluded that even assuming that Wells Fargo was acting as a debt collector in this case, it was not obligated to provide debtor with what would be a second validation notice (beyond that already provided by prior servicer’s counsel) with the requisite information. The district court cited _Nichols v. Byrd_, 435 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1106 (D.Nev.2006) which held that if Congress had intended to obligate every subsequent debt collector beyond the first to provide validation notice it would have explicitly called for it in § 1692g), _Senftle v. Landau_, 390 F.Supp.2d 463, 473 (D.Md.2005) (holding that there is only one ”initial communication” with a debtor on a given debt under § 1692g(a), even though subsequent debt collectors “may enter the picture.”) and _Ditty v. Checkrite_, 973 F.Supp. 13 1329 (D.Ut.1997) (holding that after a validation notice has been timely sent, a subsequent collector does not need to provide additional notice and another thirty-date validation period). It explicitly rejected contrary authority such as _Griswold v. J & R Anderson Bus. Serv._, 1983 U.S. Dist LEXIS 20365 (D.Or. Aug. 11, 2005) (holding that each collector must provide information required by § 1692g) and _Turner v. Shenandoah Legal Group, P.C._, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39341 (E.D. Va. June 12, 2006) (stating that every debtor is owed the same duty from each and every debt collector, lest an ”end-run around the validation notice requirement” be created) as unpersuasive. ”It would serve no purpose to require that the same information be given again and again, each time the servicing function was passed from one creditor to another”.

Download Related Document