July 21, 2019

Colorado Court of Appeals: Collection Agency’s Bold and All-Caps Statement Would Be Confusing to Least Sophisticated Consumer

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Garrett v. Credit Bureau of Carbon County on Thursday, October 18, 2018.

Debt CollectionColorado Fair Debt Collection Practices ActLeast Sophisticated Consumer.

Credit Bureau of Carbon County (Credit Bureau) is an agency that collects or attempts to collect debts owed, due, or asserted to be owed or due to another. It sent Garrett two collection notices demanding payment on a consumer debt. Garrett sued Credit Bureau, asserting that the language of its communications overshadowed and contradicted the statutory requirements of the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Act). The district court concluded that Credit Bureau’s notices had not violated the Act and denied Garrett’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Credit Bureau’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case.

On appeal, Garrett contended that the district court wrongly concluded that Credit Bureau did not violate the Act because the format and content of Credit Bureau’s notices overshadowed or contradicted the statutorily required disclosures. The Act requires debt collectors to provide a debt validation notice describing the debt. It prohibits debt collectors from using false, deceptive, or misleading representations when collecting a debt. Overshadowing occurs when a collection letter contains the requisite validation notice, but that information is obscured or diminished by the letter’s presentation or format. Contradiction occurs when language accompanying the validation notice is inconsistent with the substance of the rights and duties that the statute imposes. In Flood v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, 176 P.3d 769 (Colo. 2008), the Supreme Court adopted the “least sophisticated consumer” test to determine whether a collection agency’s notice was confusing with respect to the statutorily required disclosures. Here, Credit Bureau’s use of the bold and capitalized phrase “WE CANNOT HELP YOU UNLESS YOU CALL” in the second notice would confuse the least sophisticated consumer because it was capable of being reasonably interpreted as changing the manner in which the consumer was required by law to dispute the debt or its amount. As a matter of law, the notice was deceptive or misleading in violation of the Act.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for the district court to enter judgment for Garrett and award her statutory damages, costs, and a reasonable amount of attorney fees incurred on appeal.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Attorney Not “Debt Collector” Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in James v. Wadas on Wednesday, July 31, 2013.

George James filed this action against Cheryl Wadas and Wadas Law Office (“Wadas”) and Abby Shadakofsky, d/b/a Personal Collection Service (“Shadakofsky”), asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p. James appealed from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Wadas on the basis that she is not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA.

At issue was the district court’s interpretation of the term “debt collector” under the FDCPA, and its conclusion that Wadas was not a “debt collector” because she did not engage in debt collection “regularly.”

Congress enacted the FDCPA with the express purpose to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). A defendant can be held liable for violating the FDCPA only if she is a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. The FDCPA defines the term “debt collector” as “any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” In Heintz v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court determined that attorneys may qualify as “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, holding that the Act applies to “attorneys who ‘regularly’ engage in consumer-debt collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation.” 514 U.S. 291, 292, 299 (1995).

Based on the evidence, the district court determined that there were “no indicia” that debt collection was either a principal purpose of Wadas’s law practice or that Wadas “regularly” engaged in debt collection. Nor were there any discernible patterns, either through debt collection or litigation, that would support a finding that Wadas engaged in debt collection regularly. The court agreed with the district court’s analysis. The record did not demonstrate that Wadas engaged in debt collection with any sort of regularity.

The Tenth Circuit AFFIRMED.

SB 13-248: Allowing the Attorney General or a District Attorney to Enforce Subpoenas Against Out-of-State Persons for Cases Involving Consumer Protection Violations

On Monday, April 1, 2013, Sen. Irene Aguilar introduced SB 13-248 – Concerning the Authority of the Attorney General or a District Attorney to Enforce Subpoenas for Consumer Protection Violations Against Persons Located Outside Colorado. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

For the purposes of the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act,” the “Refund Anticipation Loans Act,” the “Colorado Rental Purchase Agreement Act,” the “Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,” and the “Colorado Credit Services Organization Act,” the bill states that the power of the attorney general or a district attorney to issue subpoenas includes the right to issue a subpoena to any person, whether in this state or elsewhere, who has engaged in or is engaging in violations of these acts.

For the purposes of the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act,” if the records of a person who has been issued a subpoena are located outside this state, the person shall either:

  • Make them available to the attorney general or district attorney at a convenient location within this state; or
  • Pay the reasonable and necessary expenses for the attorney general or district attorney, or his or her designee, to examine the records at the place where they are maintained.

The attorney general or district attorney may designate representatives, including comparable officials of the state in which the records are located, to inspect the records on behalf of the attorney general or district attorney. The bill was introduced on April 1 and is assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Since this summary, the bill was referred, unamended, to the Senate Committee of the Whole for Second Reading.

Tenth Circuit: Genuine Issue of Material Fact Existed as to Whether Plaintiff Suffered Emotional Damages Because of Defendant Loan Servicers’ Actions

The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in Llewellyn v. Allstate Home Loans, Inc. on Thursday, March 28, 2013.

Plaintiff Glen Llewellen purchased property located in Aurora, Colorado. In connection with this purchase, Plaintiff executed a note with Allstate Home Loans. The loan was funded by Allstate’s subsidiary, Equity Pacific Mortgage, Inc., (“EPMI”). Plaintiff timely made his first monthly payment. Shortly thereafter, Nomura Credit and Capital, Inc. (“NCCI”) purchased the loan and transferred the servicing rights to Ocwen. On the date of the transfer, Plaintiff’s loan was current.

Prior to the service transfer to Ocwen, Plaintiff initiated the process of refinancing the loan. Plaintiff signed the refinance documents on June 1, 2006, but did not advise the closing agent that the servicing rights had been transferred to Ocwen. Plaintiff then spoke with an Ocwen representative on June 5 and incorrectly informed Ocwen that his loan had been refinanced—at the time, he had not yet delivered the funds to the closing agent. Two days later, Plaintiff delivered the funds he owed to close the transaction.

On June 14, the closing agent wired the refinancing payoff funds to Washington Mutual Bank, identifying EPMI as the beneficiary. EPMI wired the funds to Allstate on July 11. From there, it remains unclear what became of the funds. It is undisputed, however, that neither Ocwen nor NCCI ever received the payoff funds.

Ocwen sent Plaintiff a past-due notice on the loan and a letter discussing foreclosure and its alternatives. Ocwen then provided a negative credit report regarding Plaintiff to a credit reporting agency (“CRA”).

Plaintiff called Ocwen and informed their representative his loan had been refinanced and his new loan was being serviced by Washington Mutual. The representative informed Plaintiff that Ocwen had not received any payoff funds and advised him to speak with Washington Mutual to obtain details about the status of the loan. Ocwen sent Plaintiff another past due notice and issued a foreclosure referral to the law firm of Castle Meinhold & Stawiarski, LLC (“CMS”).

After receiving the foreclosure referral from Ocwen, CMS sent a letter to Plaintiff informing him that CMS had been retained to commence foreclosure proceedings against the property.

Plaintiff sent a fax to CMS with a copy of a HUD settlement statement showing that EPMI was to receive the refinancing funds, and a letter from Washington Mutual to Plaintiff stating that if OCWEN was to be paid off and was not, please contact the closing agent for research on the payoff. CMS forwarded the information to Ocwen.

Over the course of the following months, Plaintiff’s loan was transferred to NCC Servicing, and Ocwen continued to file negative credit reports regarding Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s credit report was not reversed, in spite of assurances that it would be addressed.

Glen Llewellyn filed this action asserting a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, and a state law outrageous conduct claim against Ocwen and Nomura Credit and Capital (the “Ocwen Defendants”) based on their alleged credit reporting inaccuracies, and asserting an FDCPA and an outrageous conduct claim against Castle Meinhold & Stawiarski in connection with the foreclosure actions it took against Plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment for the Defendants on each of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed, arguing summary judgment was inappropriate on his Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims.


Plaintiff alleges the Ocwen Defendants violated § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA. Under this section, a furnisher of information who has received notice of a dispute from a CRA is required to: (1) investigate the disputed information; (2) review all relevant information provided by the CRA; (3) report the results of the investigation to the CRA; (4) report the results of the investigation to all other CRAs if the investigation reveals that the information is incomplete or inaccurate; and (5) modify, delete, or permanently block the reporting of the disputed information if it is determined to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. Pinson v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 316 F. App’x 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2009).

The district court granted summary judgment to the Ocwen Defendants, concluding Plaintiff had failed to provide evidence of actual damages, either economic or emotional, or willfulness, to support his FCRA claim.

A. Economic Damages

Plaintiff argued he suffered economic damages as a result of the Ocwen Defendants’ alleged violation of the FCRA. The record showed that Plaintiff’s credit score dropped three points during these events. Plaintiff’s allegations that his credit score dropped over 100 points as a result of Ocwen’s actions were conclusory allegations and did not create a genuine issue of material fact. Additionally, Plaintiff provided no evidence he had applied for, and been denied, additional loans. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Ocwen Defendants was affirmed on this basis.

B. Emotional Damages

Plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the Defendants’ actions, his health began to rapidly deteriorate.

Plaintiffs who rely on their own testimony to establish emotional harm must “explain [their] injury in reasonable detail and not rely on conclusory statements. Bagby v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 162 F. App’x 600, 605 (7th Cir. 2006). An injured person’s testimony alone may suffice to establish damages for emotional distress provided he reasonably and sufficiently explains the circumstances surrounding the injury.

Viewing Plaintiff’s affidavit in the light most favorable to him and drawing  all reasonable inferences in his favor, the Tenth Circuit concluded Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence he suffered emotional damages as a result of the Ocwen Defendants’ actions. His affidavit created a genuine dispute as to whether the Ocwen Defendants’ actions caused him to suffer emotional damages.

C. Willful Violation

Plaintiff contended he was entitled to statutory and punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n because the Ocwen Defendants willfully violated the FCRA. The Tenth Circuit concluded that, at most, Plaintiff offered evidence that the Ocwen Defendants negligently violated their obligations, which was insufficient to support a claim.


A. Claims Against Ocwen Defendants

Plaintiff alleged the Ocwen Defendants violated the FDCPA by communicating or threatening to  communicate to CRAs false information concerning his credit worthiness after being informed that the debt had been paid off and by failing to communicate the debt was in dispute after Plaintiff notified them of this fact.

The FDCPA applies only to “debt collectors.” Because the Ocwen Defendants acquired Plaintiff’s loan on May 15, 2006, when it was undisputedly current, they are not considered debt collectors under the FDCPA. The Tenth Circuit found no basis from which to conclude the Ocwen Defendants qualified as debt collectors under the FDCPA.

B. Claims Against CMS

Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim against CMS is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

Order granting summary judgment to the Ocwen Defendants on Plaintiff’s FCRA claim based on his alleged emotional damages REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. The district court’s order is otherwise AFFIRMED.