Public Finance Corp. v. Davis
66 Ill. 2d 85, 360 N.E.2d 765 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a party's conduct must be extreme and outrageous, and the resulting distress must be severe. Actions taken by a creditor to collect a lawful debt, even if persistent or annoying, do not rise to this level unless they constitute a prolonged course of hounding or oppressive conduct beyond all possible bounds of decency.
Facts:
- Luella Davis was indebted to Public Finance Corporation on a promissory note secured by her household goods.
- Davis defaulted on her payments around August 1, 1974, and subsequently informed Public Finance that she was unemployed and on public aid.
- From September 1974 to April 1975, agents of Public Finance called Davis several times weekly, often more than once a day, and visited her home one or more times per week.
- On October 15, 1974, while Davis's daughter was in the hospital for a serious condition, a Public Finance agent called Davis at the hospital. Davis explained the situation, stated she was sick and nervous, and asked them not to call her there, but an agent called her at the hospital again that day.
- A Public Finance employee induced Davis to write a check, promising it would not be processed, but then phoned an acquaintance of Davis and informed her that Davis was writing bad checks.
- During a home visit, after being told Davis had no money, a Public Finance employee used her phone to describe and report her household goods and refused to leave until her son entered the room.
- Davis had informed Public Finance agents that she suffered from hypertension and a nervous condition, making her particularly susceptible to emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Public Finance Corporation filed a complaint against Luella Davis in the circuit court of St. Clair County, a trial court, to collect a debt.
- Davis filed an amended counterclaim against Public Finance, alleging intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.
- The trial court granted Public Finance's motion to dismiss the counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action.
- Davis, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois granted Davis's petition for leave to appeal.
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 creditor's conduct in attempting to collect a debt—which includes frequent phone calls and home visits, calling the debtor at a hospital against her request, and deceptively causing her to write a bad check which was then publicized to an acquaintance—constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ryan
No. The alleged conduct, while persistent and annoying, does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A creditor is permitted to take reasonable measures to pursue collection of a debt, and liability only attaches for conduct that is so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. The allegations of frequent calls and visits lack specifics about abusive language or threatening behavior. While tricking Davis into writing a bad check and publicizing it was wrong, it was a single, isolated act, not a prolonged course of hounding. Even with knowledge of Davis's susceptibility, the conduct does not meet the 'major outrage' standard required for the tort.
Dissenting - Justice Dooley
Yes. The amended counterclaim states a valid cause of action because the alleged course of conduct, taken as a whole, is sufficient for a jury to find it was extreme and outrageous. The majority errs by dissecting the allegations into isolated incidents rather than viewing them as a continuous, seven-month campaign of harassment against a known vulnerable individual. The combination of relentless calls, intrusion at the hospital, deception regarding the bad check, and an intimidating home visit constitutes a 'panorama' of conduct that satisfies the pleading requirements for this tort. The court should not transmute a factual question of whether the conduct was outrageous into a legal conclusion on a motion to dismiss.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a high threshold for plaintiffs alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress in the context of debt collection in Illinois. By characterizing the creditor's actions as persistent but not outrageous, the court provides significant latitude to creditors in their collection methods. The ruling suggests that without allegations of a prolonged campaign of overt threats, abusive language, or attempts to jeopardize employment, a claim is unlikely to succeed. Future plaintiffs must plead more than mere annoyance, embarrassment, or even isolated wrongful acts to survive a motion to dismiss.
Unlock the full brief for Public Finance Corp. v. Davis