Bauer v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
2001 WL 417117, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5325 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conduct by a debt collector, even if unprofessional and based on a clear mistake, does not rise to the level of intrusion upon seclusion unless it is repeated with such persistence and frequency as to amount to a course of hounding that becomes a substantial burden to the plaintiff's existence and is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Facts:
- In March 1998, Ford Motor Credit Company (defendant) began sending collection letters and leaving messages at the home of Anthony and Ann Bauer (plaintiffs), mistakenly believing a debtor named Nadine Jackson was married to Mr. Bauer.
- The Bauers called the defendant twice to inform them of the mistake.
- The local county sheriff, Michael Lee, also telephoned the defendant on April 1, 1998, to advise that Nadine Jackson did not live in the Bauers' town.
- Despite these notifications, the defendant made at least nine additional calls in April and May to the Bauers' neighbors, relatives, and employers, all of whom confirmed the defendant had the wrong information.
- The local postmaster also advised the defendant on May 14, 1998, that no one named Nadine Jackson lived at the Bauers' address.
- After these events, the defendant hired a private investigation service and a repossession agency.
- On August 18, 1998, an agent from the repossession agency appeared at the Bauer home to repossess a vehicle but left after Mrs. Bauer called the sheriff.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony and Ann Bauer filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Credit Company in Houston County District Court, a Minnesota state trial court.
- The defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, a federal trial court, based on diversity and federal question jurisdiction.
- The court previously granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, deceptive trade practices, harassment, stalking, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims of defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and two types of invasion of privacy.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a debt collector's conduct, which includes making several phone calls to an innocent third party and their relations and attempting one repossession over five months despite being told they have the wrong person, constitute an invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Doty, District Judge.
No, the defendant's conduct does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. To be actionable, an intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person, which involves conduct that amounts to a course of hounding and becomes a substantial burden. Here, the sum total of the defendant's conduct over a five-month span involved leaving four messages, making phone contact with four neighbors or relatives and one employer, and instigating one repossession attempt. While this conduct merits a sharp reprimand, it does not meet the 'highly offensive' standard required to support an intrusion upon seclusion claim. Similarly, the plaintiffs' defamation claim fails because there is no evidence that the defendant's communications harmed their reputation, and the publication of private facts claim fails because contacting a small group of people does not meet the legal requirement of 'publicity.'
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold for establishing the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in the context of debt collection. It demonstrates that conduct must be exceptionally persistent and intrusive—a true 'course of hounding'—to be deemed 'highly offensive' by a court. The ruling suggests that isolated or sporadic contacts, even if negligent and unprofessional, are unlikely to be legally actionable, providing a degree of protection for companies engaged in collection activities from liability for mistaken, but not extreme, conduct. The decision also reinforces a narrow interpretation of the 'publicity' element for the tort of publication of private facts, refusing to expand it based on the potential for gossip in a small community.
