Blum v. Fisher and Fisher
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4400, 1997 WL 176468, 961 F. Supp 1218 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debt collection communication may violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if its language, when viewed through the lens of an 'unsophisticated consumer,' is deceptive or misleading, even if it contains no explicitly false statements. Whether a communication is misleading under this standard is typically a question of fact for a jury.
Facts:
- On July 24, 1990, Fred A. Blum signed a mortgage and note for his home.
- The mortgage was eventually acquired by Mellon Mortgage Company (Mellon).
- On approximately February 21, 1996, Blum’s mortgage fell into default, and Mellon referred the account to the law firm Fisher and Fisher (Fisher) for collection.
- On February 27, 1996, Blum's attorney contacted Fisher, informing the firm of his representation and that he would accept service of any foreclosure complaint on Blum's behalf.
- An attorney at Fisher then had a telephone conversation with Blum's attorney, providing the amount needed to reinstate the loan and offering to refrain from action until March 10, 1996.
- No further communication occurred between Fisher and Blum's attorney for the next month.
- On March 29, 1996, Fisher mailed a debt collection letter directly to Blum.
- The letter stated that a foreclosure had been filed, that Blum 'may be allowed to stay in the house absolutely rent free' for approximately 7 months, and that the outstanding debt included 'attorneys’ fees and costs.'
Procedural Posture:
- On March 29, 1996, Fisher filed a Complaint to Foreclose the Mortgage against Blum in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- On April 15, 1996, Blum filed a putative class action complaint against Fisher in the same court, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
- Fisher, the defendant, moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in its favor without a trial.
- Blum, the plaintiff, filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in his favor without a trial.
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 collection letter violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) as a matter of law if it suggests a debtor may live 'rent free' during foreclosure and lists unawarded attorneys' fees as part of the current debt, and does direct contact with a represented debtor violate the Act when the debtor's attorney has been silent for 30 days?
Opinions:
Majority - Moran, Senior District Judge
No, the court cannot determine that the letter violates the FDCPA as a matter of law because genuine issues of material fact exist that must be decided by a jury. Under the 'unsophisticated consumer' standard, a debt collection communication is evaluated based on how it would be perceived by a consumer who is uninformed, naive, or trusting. First, the letter's statement that a homeowner 'may be allowed to stay in the house absolutely rent free' for seven months, while omitting other crucial options like filing an answer or contesting the foreclosure, could mislead an unsophisticated consumer into inaction, thereby risking a default judgment. Second, stating in the present tense that the debt includes 'attorneys' fees and costs' before a court has awarded them could falsely represent the current legal status and amount of the debt. Finally, the FDCPA permits direct contact with a represented consumer only if their attorney 'fails to respond within a reasonable period of time.' Whether the 30-day silence from Blum's attorney constitutes a 'reasonable period' is a factual determination. Because a reasonable trier of fact could find for either party on these issues, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case serves as a key illustration of the 'unsophisticated consumer' standard in FDCPA litigation. It establishes that compliance with the Act is not a mere technicality; the overall impression of a communication is paramount. The court's decision to deny summary judgment underscores that the misleading nature of a debt collection letter is often a question of fact for a jury, making it more difficult for debt collectors to obtain early dismissal of such claims. This precedent strengthens consumer protections by recognizing that even ambiguous or partially true statements can be deceptive if they overshadow or contradict a consumer's actual legal rights and options.
Unlock the full brief for Blum v. Fisher and Fisher