Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Eleventh Circuit Holds Plaintiffs Must Have Incurred Concrete Injury for Article III Standing to Sue under FDCPA

By Lauren G. Raines & Elizabeth R. Brusa on July 22, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Eleventh Circuit Holds Plaintiffs Must Have Incurred Concrete Injury for Article III Standing to Sue under FDCPAUnder the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), debt collectors are prohibited from using “false, deceptive, or misleading representation[s]” in connection with collecting debts. If a debt collector violates the FDCPA, the debt collector may be liable in the amount of the actual damages incurred by a debtor resulting from the FDCPA violation. Further, additional statutory damages may be imposed against debt collectors for FDCPA violations.

In Trichell v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. the Eleventh Circuit recently considered two cases involving the issue of whether consumers have standing to sue a debt collector under the FDCPA where the debt collector’s correspondence was allegedly misleading, but the consumers were not actually misled.

The Lower Court Cases

In the first case, the debt collector, Midland Credit, sent three letters to plaintiff John Trichell regarding repayment plans for Trichell’s debt. The letters included the following disclaimer: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt and how long a debt can appear on your credit report. Due to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it or report payment or non-payment of it to a credit bureau.” Notwithstanding this disclaimer, Trichell sued Midland under the FDCPA, asserting that the collection letters were misleading by suggesting Midland could sue Trichell for the stale debt or report its nonpayment to credit bureaus.

In the second case, Midland sent plaintiff Keith Cooper a similar letter regarding repayment of Cooper’s credit card debt. The letter sent to Cooper included a disclaimer identical to the one in the letters sent to Trichell. Cooper also sued Midland under the FDCPA, asserting that the letter was misleading because it did not include a warning that, if Cooper made a partial payment on the stale debt, such payment could constitute a new promise to pay and would reset the statute of limitations.

The district courts dismissed both Trichell’s and Cooper’s cases against Midland for failure to state a claim.

The Eleventh Circuit Appeal

In taking up appeals of both cases against Midland, the Eleventh Circuit in Trichell v. Midland examined the issue of whether Trichell and Cooper enjoyed Article III standing to sue. Article III courts have jurisdiction over cases or controversies where standing is comprised of (i) an injury in fact suffered by the plaintiff, (ii) where the defendant caused such injury, and (iii) a decision in favor of the plaintiff will redress the injury. An injury in fact is comprised of an attack on a legally protected interest that is actual and concrete, rather than merely speculative or hypothetical. Further, even if a statute, such as the FDCPA, provides a statutory basis to sue, injury in fact must nonetheless be established for Article III standing to exist.

In their respective complaints, Trichell and Cooper failed to plead any concrete injuries they incurred as a result of the letters sent by Midland, such as payments made in response to the letters or wasted time or money in determining whether to make such payments. Rather, Trichell and Cooper asserted that the letters created a risk that unsophisticated borrowers might make payments on stale debt after receiving such letters.

Joining the Seventh and D.C. Circuits, the Eleventh Circuit held that such risk did not constitute an injury in fact because Trichell and Cooper themselves were not harmed by the letters. The Eleventh Circuit further noted that any risk the letters could have caused Trichell and Cooper had dissipated by the time they filed suit against Midland.

Trichell and Cooper also asserted that the FDCPA creates a right under which consumers must receive truthful information from debt collectors. Trichell and Cooper argued that any violation of that right constitutes an injury in fact. Rejecting this argument, the Eleventh Circuit held that, because Trichell and Cooper merely received the misleading letters but suffered no injury as a result, Trichell’s and Cooper’s alleged informational injuries were insufficient to confer Article III standing.

What’s Next?

Debt collectors should always take the necessary steps to ensure their debt collection activity does not run afoul of the FDCPA or other applicable laws. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in defending against claims asserting violations of the FDCPA, debt collectors may raise lack of Article III standing as a defense when plaintiffs fail to assert concrete injuries caused by alleged FDCPA violations. Even if plaintiffs allege concrete injuries in their complaints such that these claims are not disposed of at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiffs still will need to establish concrete injury to prevail on the merits.

Photo of Lauren G. Raines Lauren G. Raines

Lauren Raines is a member of the Banking and Financial Services Practice Group and the Real Estate Practice Group. Lauren divides her time between transactional and litigation matters and regularly handles both commercial lending transactions and financial services litigation. This hybrid practice has…

Lauren Raines is a member of the Banking and Financial Services Practice Group and the Real Estate Practice Group. Lauren divides her time between transactional and litigation matters and regularly handles both commercial lending transactions and financial services litigation. This hybrid practice has allowed Lauren to better serve her transactional clients by advising them on the potential areas of conflict that could arise later in litigation, and to effectively advocate for her litigation clients due to her broad understanding of real estate principles.

Lauren has successfully handled countless contested commercial and consumer mortgage foreclosure trials for banks and mortgage servicers across the state of Florida. Lauren also has experience handling lender liability claims, usury actions, lien priority claims, fraudulent transfer claims, and violations of federal and Florida consumer protection statutes. Lauren also regularly represents merchant cash advance companies in enforcement actions, bankruptcy litigation and defending against usury, RICO, preference and lien avoidance claims.

Read more about Lauren G. RainesEmailLauren's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Elizabeth R. Brusa Elizabeth R. Brusa

Elizabeth Brusa is an associate in the Banking and Financial Services Practice Group focusing on small dollar lending, bankruptcy, and privacy, security and innovation. She is a Certified Information Privacy Professional for the U.S. Private-Sector (CIPP/US). Elizabeth counsels financial services clients on matters…

Elizabeth Brusa is an associate in the Banking and Financial Services Practice Group focusing on small dollar lending, bankruptcy, and privacy, security and innovation. She is a Certified Information Privacy Professional for the U.S. Private-Sector (CIPP/US). Elizabeth counsels financial services clients on matters related to bankruptcy proceedings, bankruptcy fraud and abuse, and Chapter 11 filings.

Read more about Elizabeth R. BrusaEmailElizabeth's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Financial
  • Blog:
    Financial Services Perspectives
  • Organization:
    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • International Dispute Resolution
  • China Law Update Blog
  • Law of The Ledger
  • Antitrust Law Blog
  • Your ERISA Watch
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo