Falkenstein v. Dill
Steven Falkenstein and
Connie Falkenstein, Plaintiffs and Appellants
Jon W. Dill and Credico, Inc.,
d/b/a Credit Collections Bureau, Defendants and Appellees
South Central Judicial District,
Judge David E. Reich
|Nature of Action:||Debtor/Creditor|
|Term:||06/2012  Argument: 06/25/2012 1:30pm|
|ND cite:||2012 ND 165|
820 N.W.2d 382
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
A classic "least sophisticated consumer" couple owes a roughly $1,200 judgment to a bill collector, which is also trying to collect other debts from the consumers. Trying to clear the judgment's cloud of title on his house, and not sure of what is owed on the judgment, the consumer goes to the collector's office, pays $200 toward the judgment, and asks what he still owes. The consumer writes down what the collector says - the same roughly $1,200 figure. By not telling the consumer a $200 lower figure, did the collector violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by committing an unfair and deceptive debt collection practice?
Having already been told the collector wants about $2,800 to clear title to their house, the least sophisticated consumer couple asks their real estate broker to call and get the figure. The collector tells the broker $2,800 is needed. Again, did the collector again FDCPA?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Whether Appellant Plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed on a new claim, not alleged in the Complaint or articulated during the course of discovery, that Defendants provided an incorrect calculation of the subject debt during an in-person visit by Mr. Falkenstein to Credico.
Whether Plaintiffs may base a claim that Defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act by making a false communication to Plaintiffs regarding the amount of a debt, where the communication was actually to a third-party real estate agent, who called Defendant Credico at the behest of Appellants' attorney and was given an approximation of the total amount due rather than the precise amount of judgments then outstanding.
Whether Appellees are entitled to summary judgment on the alternative ground that Appellants have no actual damages.
|Add Docket 20120113 RSS|
|1||02/17/2012||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/15/2012|
|2||03/14/2012||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL dated March 13, 2012 (ENTRY NOS. 1-35)|
|3||03/22/2012||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|4||03/22/2012||ACTION BY CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK. Granted: 04/25/2012|
|9||05/03/2012||Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt#21164)|
|10||05/04/2012||Received 7 copies of ATB from CSD|
|11||05/07/2012||Received 6 copies of ATA from CSD|
|12||05/18/2012||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|15||05/24/2012||Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt #21195)|
|16||06/01/2012||Rec'd 7 copies of AEB from CSD|
|17||06/25/2012||APPEARANCES: John J. Gosbee; Christopher R. Morris|
|18||06/25/2012||ARGUED: John J. Gosbee; Christopher R. Morris|
|19||06/25/2012||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|20||06/29/2012||Citation of Supplemental Authority by Appellee|
|22||06/29/2012||Response to Citation of Supplemental Authority|
|25||08/16/2012||SPLIT OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|26||08/16/2012||DISSENTING: Sandstrom, Dale V.: DISSENT|
|27||08/16/2012||COSTS ON APPEAL TAXED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE|
|28||08/17/2012||Judgment Sent to Parties|