Falkenstein v. Dill

20120113 Steven Falkenstein and
Connie Falkenstein, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Jon W. Dill and Credico, Inc.,
d/b/a Credit Collections Bureau, Defendants and Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge David E. Reich
Nature of Action: Debtor/Creditor
Counsel:
Appellant: John J. Gosbee
Appellee: Christopher Ralph Morris
Term: 06/2012   Argument: 06/25/2012  1:30pm
ND cite: 2012 ND 165
NW cite: 820 N.W.2d 382

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Listen to recording of oral argument in RM format
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: 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 Add Docket 20120113 RSS

Docket entries:
102/17/2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/15/2012
203/14/2012 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL dated March 13, 2012 (ENTRY NOS. 1-35)
303/22/2012 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
403/22/2012 ACTION BY CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK. Granted: 04/25/2012
504/23/2012 APPELLANT BRIEF
604/23/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
704/23/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX
804/23/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX
905/03/2012 Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt#21164)
1005/04/2012 Received 7 copies of ATB from CSD
1105/07/2012 Received 6 copies of ATA from CSD
1205/18/2012 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
1305/22/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF
1405/22/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
1505/24/2012 Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt #21195)
1606/01/2012 Rec'd 7 copies of AEB from CSD
1706/25/2012 APPEARANCES: John J. Gosbee; Christopher R. Morris
1806/25/2012 ARGUED: John J. Gosbee; Christopher R. Morris
1906/25/2012 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2006/29/2012 Citation of Supplemental Authority by Appellee
2106/29/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
2206/29/2012 Response to Citation of Supplemental Authority
2306/29/2012 EFILED RESPONSE
2408/16/2012 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2508/16/2012 SPLIT OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning
2608/16/2012 DISSENTING: Sandstrom, Dale V.: DISSENT
2708/16/2012 COSTS ON APPEAL TAXED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE
2808/17/2012 Judgment Sent to Parties
2909/10/2012 MANDATE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/28/2014