Collection agency successfully fends off debtor’s bogus FDCPA claim described by the court as nothing more than a setup

On the court’s motion, debtor and his counsel in Huebner v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 14-cv-6046 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 11, 2015), were ordered to show cause why debtor’s bogus FDCPA complaint against defendant collection agency should not be dismissed with attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions to issue. In what amounted to a failed attempt to put the squeeze on the collection agency for a nuisance settlement and a pittance of attorneys’ fees, debtor through counsel filed a complaint representing that during a recorded telephone call, the collection agency wrongfully stated to the debtor that he could not orally dispute a debt and any dispute made must be in writing, in violation of subsections 1692e(8) and 1692(10) of the FDCPA. At the Initial Status Conference, the collection agency disputed the debtor’s claims and explained to the court that not only did the collection agency not make the offending statements but also that the debtor did in fact dispute the debt during the phone call and was ultimately successful in his efforts. Irrespective of the debtor’s success, the debtor’s lawyer continued to press the court into finding the collection agency liable for a technical violation of the FDCPA by allegedly telling the debtor during the call that he could only dispute the debt in writing. The debtor’s lawyer assured the court that a tape recording of the phone call would back up the claims. The court listened to the tape recording of the phone call and found the recording was silent on the debtor’s claims but was crystal clear that the debtor was a fast-talking sophisticated debtor who intentionally set out to entrap the collection agency into a technical violation for economic gain. The court, not coy in its disdain for the debtor and his lawyer, issued a heavy-handed rebuke of their scheme to outsmart the collection agency and make a little money while at it. The court bristled that, this case has all of the earmarks of a setup and the [FDCPA] should not be diluted to become a plaything for fast-talking [debtors] and their lawyers. Furthermore, the court held that the collection agency’s inquiry into the nature of the debtor’s dispute did not amount to a statutory violation; and instead ordered, _sua sponte_, the debtor and his lawyer to show cause why the case should not be dismissed with attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions to issue based on the debtor’s nonsensical complaint.

Download Related Document