Court Ruling Favors Debt Collector; Provides Some Direction on "Harassment"

A court in Texas recently handed down a favorable ruling for a debt collector in a case where a consumer sued over misidentification. The ruling has some language that could be precedential, as the court made a specific judgment on what constitutes “harassment” under the FDCPA.

The case was originally reported by ACA International.

In Coleman v. Credit Mgmt., LP., before the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, a consumer alleged that that the debt collector violated two provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by 1) contacting her three times after 9pm local time, and 2) contacting her 14 times over the course of three months.

The debt collector argued that the call time violation was invalid since the address it had on record for the consumer was in California. Further, the plaintiff did not meet the definition of “consumer” under the FDCPA anyway since she was not the correct person. The court agreed and ruled that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue under that provision of the FDCPA.

On the second alleged violation, the plaintiff accused the debt collector of harassment by contacting her 14 times in a three month period. The defendant noted that all debt collection activities, including calls, stopped after it learned that it had the wrong person.

The court ruled that the plaintiff did have standing to sue for harassment under the FDCPA, since that provisions applies to “any person.” In proceedings, the plaintiff confirmed that “the representative to whom she spoke made no disparaging remarks towards her nor made any threat to her.” She claimed that the number of calls, combined with the three after 9pm, showed intent to harass.

The court wrote that “the frequency of the phone calls averages only one per every five days, a number that does not rise to the level of abuse as a matter of law under these circumstances.”

The ruling, filed on November 2, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims.