The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Marx v. General Revenue Corp. on Wednesday, December 21, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner defaulted on her student loan. Her guarantor hired Respondent to collect on the account. Petitioner sued Respondent, alleging abusive and threatening phone calls in violation of the FDCPA. Respondent then made an offer of judgment, which Petitioner did not accept. She then amended her complaint to add a claim that Respondent violated the FDCPA by sending a facsimile to her workplace that requested information about her employment status. The district court found that the challenged collection practices were not abusive and threatening given its view of what actually occurred. On appeal, Petitioner argues that Respondent violated the FDCPA by sending the facsimile and claims that the district court erred in finding that a facsimile sent by Respondent did not constitute a “communication” [to third-parties] under the FDCPA.

The facsimile was sent to Petitioner’s employer as part of Respondent’s inquiry into her eligibility for wage garnishment. When Respondent called her employer to verify her employment status, the agent was told to make the request in writing. Respondent then sent its standard employment verification form. This form displays Respondent’s name, logo, address, and phone number, and bears an “ID” number representing Respondent’s internal account number for Petitioner. “The form indicates that its purpose is to ‘verify [e]mployment’ and to ‘[request] employment information’; blanks are left for the employer to fill in the individual’s employment status, date of hire, corporate payroll address, and position, and to note whether the individual works full- or part-time.”

The Court concluded that absent any evidentiary showing that Petitioner’s employer either knew or inferred that the facsimile involved a debt, the facsimile does not satisfy the statutory definition of a “communication.”