The Second Circuit recently joined other circuits in
holding that money owed as result of theft does not
constitute a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA. In Beauvoir
v. Israel, C.A. 14-3794 (2d Cir. July 21, 2015) the consumers filed a
putative class action against an attorney who was retained by a natural gas
company to collect for the consumption of unmetered gas to the consumers’
residence. The underlying obligation
arose from allegations that the consumers “diverted and consumed unmetered
natural gas…by means of unlawfully tampering with… [the] gas meter to impede,
impair, obstruct and prevent the…meter from performing its recording function.” The demand letter sent by the attorney did
not contain the debt validation language required by 15 U.S.C. §1692g. The attorney moved to dismiss the claim
because the collection action he initiated concerned the theft of natural gas
and thus, was not a debt as the term is defined by the FDCPA.
In affirming the district court’s dismissal of the FDCPA
suit, the court focused on the asserted basis for the obligation to pay. Under the FDCPA, a “debt” is defined as an “obligation
or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money,
property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such
obligation has been reduced to judgment.”
15 U.S.C. §1692a. Because the money
owed in this case arose as a result of theft and not out of a transaction or as
a result of the rendition of a voluntary service or transaction, the court
determined that it was not a debt covered by the FDCPA. At a minimum, the court concluded that the
FDCPA contemplates that the debt arise as a result of the rendition of a
service or purchase of property or other item of value. For those keeping count, a majority of the
circuits have held that liability derived from theft or torts does
not constitute a debt under the FDCPA. See Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922,
926 (2009); Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment,
Inc., 140 F. 3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1998); Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C., 111 F.3d
1322 (7th Cir. 1997); Zimmerman
v. HBO Affiliate Grp., 834 F.2d 1163 (3d Cir. 1987).
No comments:
Post a Comment