Litigation Byte

District Court Holds Debt Verification In Response to Consumer’s Letter Refusing to Pay, But Disputing the Debt, Is Not a FDCPA Violation

February 24, 2025

Hall v. Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01026-JRR, 2025 WL 475275, at *1 (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2025)

A United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland rejected a plaintiff’s arguments that a debt collector’s verification of a debt in response to a letter refusing to pay, but disputing the debt, violated the cease communication directive under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Instead, the Judge found the plaintiff’s letter essentially waived his cease-and-desist rights and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Background

In Hall, the defendant sought to collect a debt allegedly owed by the plaintiff. On March 12, 2024, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant seeking to collect the debt. The plaintiff responded on March 18 by letter, stating, “the real kicker is I received and [sic] unwanted letter from you guys Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, I’m like what 10,511.29 I don’t remember apply [sic] for credit with a Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch; I’m unwilling to pay this debt‼! I decline to pay this debt.” In response, the defendant wrote the plaintiff on March 28 stating it was responding to the plaintiff’s debt amount dispute letter and attached copies of the most recent statements prior to charge off as well as the account transaction history. The letter also stated that their client had verified the remaining amount of the debt. The defendant had no further communication with the plaintiff regarding the debt.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s March 28 letter violated § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by failing to cease communications with him following his March 18 letter. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. The defendant argued its March 28 letter did not violate the FDCPA because the plaintiff waived the FDCPA’s cease communication directive since his March 18 letter disputed and refused to pay the debt.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court begins by noting the only disputed issue is whether the defendant’s March 28 letter violated § 1692c(c). Specifically, the “cease communication” directive provided in this section states: “If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt.” This section provides three exceptions – none of which are applicable.

The defendant argued that its March 28 letter did not violate the FDCPA because the plaintiff waived any cease-and-desist rights since his March 18 letter disputed and refused to pay the debt. The plaintiff countered that once a cease communication request is received, a debt collector must cease all communications except for the specific exceptions listed in section 1692c(c). The plaintiff’s position was that his March 18 letter “was solely a refusal to pay and a request for cessation of communication” and did not dispute the debt or question the identity of the creditor.

First, the court looked at § 1692g(b), which provides requirements for a debt collector to verify a debt if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within thirty days of receiving notice of the debt that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that § 1692g(b) does not provide a waiver to the cease communication directive. The court cited several other cases where courts have found that when a consumer directs the debt collector to cease communication but disputes the debt and/or requests verification, the consumer has been deemed to waive any claim under Section 1692c(c) that a subsequent response providing verification violated the consumer’s cease communication directive.

Next, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the statement in his March 18 letter was solely a refusal to pay and a request for cessation of communication. Instead, the court agreed with the defendant that the language of the letter constituted both a dispute and a refusal to pay the debt. The court noted that the defendant had not contacted the plaintiff following his March 18 letter for any purpose. The court found that the defendant “did not exceed the lawful, permissible scope of Plaintiff’s waiver” and that the defendant satisfied its obligation under § 1692g(b). The court held that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Key Takeaway

Hall v. Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, LLC serves as an important reminder to debt collectors that when a consumer’s correspondence contains both a directive that the debt collector cease communication and disputes the debt, a debt collector’s obligations under § 1692g(b) remain and compliance with these requirements will not rise to the level of a violation of the FDCPA’s “cease communication” directive contained in § 1692c(c).