What is the name of your state?
An old case posted on another site but I thought it was kinda funny. Looks like the executrix had no sense of humor.
ELVERA J. KASCHAK, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Michael Molnar, Plaintiff, v. RARITAN VALLEY COLLECTION AGENCY, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 88-3763
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19103
May 22, 1989, Decided
May 23, 1989, Filed
NOTICE: [*1] NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion for actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692k(a)(1) denied; Plaintiff's motion for statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692(a)(2)(A) granted in the amount of $ 900.00; Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692k(a)(3) granted subject to the requirement. Defendant's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692(a)(3) denied.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff executrix of debtor's estate (executrix) and defendant debt collector filed competing motions for summary judgment in the executrix' action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692. The executrix filed motions for actual and statutory damages and attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1692k(a)(1), (3) and 1692(a)(2)(A). The debt collector filed a motion for attorney's fees.
OVERVIEW: After the debtor's death, the debt collector wrote a letter addressed to the debtor in an effort to collect on a purported past due account with a hospital. The executrix's attorney wrote the debt collector and informed it that she represented the debtor's estate. In its collection efforts, the debt collector then wrote a second letter addressed to the debtor. As a result of the letters, the executrix filed her action, and the court held that summary judgment was appropriate in part as to both parties' competing motions. The court held that the executrix only had standing to bring her claims under the FDCPA in her official capacity. The debt collector was liable under § 805(c) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692c(c), because it failed to show its entitlement to the good faith defense under § 813(c) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. §1692k(c). The debt collector's letters failed to comply with the mandates of §§ 807(11) and 809(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1692e(11), 1692g. The debt collector also failed to provide the requested verification pursuant to § 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692g(b). The court held that the executrix was entitled to statutory damages and attorney's fees.
OUTCOME: The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' competing motions for summary judgment. The court granted the executrix' motions for statutory damages and attorney's fees, but denied her motion for actual damages. The court also denied the debt collector's motion for attorney's fees.
An old case posted on another site but I thought it was kinda funny. Looks like the executrix had no sense of humor.
ELVERA J. KASCHAK, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Michael Molnar, Plaintiff, v. RARITAN VALLEY COLLECTION AGENCY, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 88-3763
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19103
May 22, 1989, Decided
May 23, 1989, Filed
NOTICE: [*1] NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion for actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692k(a)(1) denied; Plaintiff's motion for statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692(a)(2)(A) granted in the amount of $ 900.00; Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692k(a)(3) granted subject to the requirement. Defendant's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692(a)(3) denied.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff executrix of debtor's estate (executrix) and defendant debt collector filed competing motions for summary judgment in the executrix' action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692. The executrix filed motions for actual and statutory damages and attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1692k(a)(1), (3) and 1692(a)(2)(A). The debt collector filed a motion for attorney's fees.
OVERVIEW: After the debtor's death, the debt collector wrote a letter addressed to the debtor in an effort to collect on a purported past due account with a hospital. The executrix's attorney wrote the debt collector and informed it that she represented the debtor's estate. In its collection efforts, the debt collector then wrote a second letter addressed to the debtor. As a result of the letters, the executrix filed her action, and the court held that summary judgment was appropriate in part as to both parties' competing motions. The court held that the executrix only had standing to bring her claims under the FDCPA in her official capacity. The debt collector was liable under § 805(c) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692c(c), because it failed to show its entitlement to the good faith defense under § 813(c) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. §1692k(c). The debt collector's letters failed to comply with the mandates of §§ 807(11) and 809(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1692e(11), 1692g. The debt collector also failed to provide the requested verification pursuant to § 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692g(b). The court held that the executrix was entitled to statutory damages and attorney's fees.
OUTCOME: The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' competing motions for summary judgment. The court granted the executrix' motions for statutory damages and attorney's fees, but denied her motion for actual damages. The court also denied the debt collector's motion for attorney's fees.