This article was republished on insideARM on March 18, 2025.
In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector who responded to a debtor’s letter disputing and refusing to pay a debt by providing validation of the debt. The court found that the debt collector’s actions did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
In Hall v. Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, LLC, the defendant was retained by a third party to collect a debt owed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff responded to the defendant’s efforts by sending a 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.” The defendant responded by providing recent statements, an account transaction history, account records, and client verification. The defendant had no further contact with the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA by not ceasing communications upon receipt of his letter.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s letter waived the cease communication directive because it disputed the debt. The plaintiff countered that his letter was solely a refusal to pay and a request for the defendant to cease communication, and that the defendant’s response did not fall under the exceptions listed in § 1692c(c). The court noted that various jurisdictions have held that a consumer can waive their cease-and-desist rights when disputing a debt or requesting verification. In such cases, sending a validation letter does not violate the FDCPA. The court agreed with the defendant, finding that the plaintiff’s letter both disputed the debt and constituted a refusal to pay. Because the defendant did not otherwise contact the plaintiff, sending the validation letter was within the permissible scope of the waiver and satisfied the defendant’s obligation under § 1692g(b) to verify the debt. Consequently, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s motion.