Seventh Circuit Elaborates on Definition of “Consumer” Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard a case in which it had to determine whether the definition of a “consumer” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) includes a person who is being contacted by a debt collector over a debt that allegedly is owed, but which the person claims she or he does not owe. The definition of “consumer” is extremely important for this particular type of situation because it determines whether that person—who says she does not actually owe a debt but is being contacted about a debt—has protections under the FDCPA.
In the case, Loja v. Main Street Acquisition Corp. (2018), the Court determined that the definition of “consumer” under the FDCPA is broad enough to include “consumers who have been alleged by debt collectors to owe debts that the consumers themselves contend they do not owe.” The case will have implications for future consumers in Oak Park and throughout Illinois. We want to tell you more about the case and why it is significant.
Getting the Facts of Loja v. Main Street Acquisition Corp.
The case began back in 2007 when a person opened a Visa credit card account using the name “Mario Loja.” The card went into default with a remaining balance of $4,018.17, and the bank charged off that debt. The bank then sold the debt to Main Street Acquisition Corporation, which is a collection agency in Illinois. The collection agency then hired a lawyer to file a claim to recoup the money owed. In short, Mario Loja was named in the complaint, and he was served with papers requiring him to appear in small claims court.
According to the case, Loja “maintains he never opened an account . . . and never accrued any credit card debt” on that account. When Loja was served with the complaint, he appeared in small claims court to insist further that he never owed the debt. He also insisted that, even if he did owe the debt, the claim was time-barred under Illinois law. The small claims court dismissed the case with prejudice, ruling in favor of Loja.
Loja then filed a claim against Main Street under the FDCPA. Main Street argued that Loja was not eligible to file a claim under the FDCPA because he was not able to show that his claim related to credit card debt “for personal, family, or household purchases.” Loja argued that, even though he did not owe the debt in question, it was “on a personal credit card,” which was sufficient for purposes of filing a claim under the FDCPA. However, the district court dismissed the case brought by Loja for another reason, which led to the Seventh Circuit hearing the case.
Defining a “Consumer” Under the FDCPA
The district court ultimately dismissed the case in favor of Main Street, ruling that Loja was ineligible to file a claim because he did not meet the definition of a “consumer” under the FDCPA. The district court reasoned that a consumer is defined as one who is “obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt,” and as such a plaintiff—Loja in this case—would be required to “allege he actually owed a debt.” Since Loja maintained that he did not owe the debt, the district court said he could not file a claim under the FDCPA. Loja appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “the definition of ‘consumer’ under the FDCPA includes consumers who have been alleged by debt collectors to owe debts that the consumers themselves contend they do not owe.” The Court reasoned that this ruling is in line with the aims of the FDCPA, which is designed to hold debt collectors accountable for their conduct. The ruling broadens the definition of consumer and allows other people in situations like Loja’s to file a claim under the FDCPA.
Contact an Oak Park Consumer Protection Lawyer
If you have questions about your rights under the FDCPA, you should discuss your case with a consumer protection attorney in Oak Park. An advocate at the Emerson Law Firm can help. Contact us today for more information.
See Related Blog Posts:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

New Information on Debts That Bankruptcy Cannot Discharge

If you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy in the Oak Park area, it is important to know that certain kinds of debts cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy case. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, these are known as non-dischargeable debts, or exceptions to discharge. There are certain types of debts that have long been identified clearly as non-dischargeable debts, while there are misconceptions about other types of debts that may or may not be dischargeable. As an article in CNBC discusses, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley , which clarifies that debts incurred due to another party’s fraud cannot be discharged in an individual’s bankruptcy case. Our Oak Park bankruptcy attorneys can explain the Court’s recent ruling and provide you with additional information on dischargeable and non-dischargeable debts. Supreme Court Says Debt Incurred Due to Another’s Fraud is Non-Dischargeable The recent Bartenwerfer case involved a debtor attempti
Read more

Learning About Different Types of Wills

Whether you are young or old, single or married, wealthy or with limited financial means, healthy or dealing with a medical condition, it is important to make a will. Many people have incorrectly heard that wills are only necessary for particular people, such as those with a substantial amount of assets or for older adults in poor health. Yet wills are critical for adults of all ages, and an experienced Oak Park estate planning lawyer can help you to make one. Before you begin working with a lawyer on a will, you might start conducting your own research into wills in Illinois and the requirements for a valid will. In so doing, you are likely to come across information about many different types of wills, and you are probably going to wonder whether you will need more than one kind of will. In short, there are different terms that can be used to describe the form or function of a will, as well as some distinct types of wills. Our Oak Park estate planning attorneys can explain in more
Read more

Younger Parents Need an Estate Plan

It is critical for younger parents to have an estate plan, even if they know they are healthy and do not anticipate that anything will happen in the near future. Much too often, younger parents assume that they can wait until they are older to consider estate planning or until there is a health-related reason to begin the estate planning process. Yet estate planning is critically important for parents who have minor children. While estate planning is important for adults of all ages, it can allow parents to make important decisions about who will care for their children in the event that they become unable to do so themselves. Our Oak Park estate planning lawyers can explain in more detail. Naming a Guardian for Your Minor Children in Your Will Most importantly for younger parents, making a will allows you to name a guardian who can care for your child in the event of your unexpected death. Nobody anticipates a deadly accident or a sudden situation in which there is a need for another
Read more