Here's not one, but two, or even three, unusual twists on Fair Debt Collection Practices Act litigation: A lawsuit with heavenly implications.
Bullseye Collection Agency sent out a debt collection notice to Mark and Sara Neill, seeking to collect $88 from them. Bullseye's letter had the letters WWJD at the top, which set off the Neills, who filed a class action lawsuit against Bullseye arguing that the WWJD had the effect of "invoking shame or guilt in alleged debtors," and also claimed that WWJD "portray[s] the debtor as a sinner who is going to hell.’”
Bullseye wasn't intimidated and got representation from Liberty Counsel, which first sought to dismiss the case. The Court ruled that WWJD could be enough to shame a debtor, which would violate section 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), that being the section that prohibits unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Court did dismiss a second claim the Neills brought -- the second claim being that the use of SECOND NOTICE!! on what was actually the third letter was illegal. The Court ruled that the SECOND NOTICE!! was arguably false but not material -- that it didn't make any difference if the statement was false in this case.
Bullseye, having failed to dismiss the case, then filed counterclaims, asserting that (a) it was owed the $88 that started this whole thing, and (b) the Neills were liable for abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and bad faith under the FDCPA. (Remember, I mentioned bad faith under the FDCPA here.)
So where'd all that come from? Well, it turns out that the Neills own their own collection agency, an allegedly smaller one than Bullseye but competing against them in the same market. So Bullseye alleged that the Neills' lawsuit in actuality was
wilfully commenced...for the ulterior purpose of disparaging BCA, and embroiling BCA in protracted and expensive litigation, in order to (a) work an unfair economic hardship or disadvantage upon BCA, to the unfair advantage of BCR; (b)intimidate and deprive BCA of its First Amendment and other constitutional rights; and(c) avoid payment of a debt that Mark Neill and Sara Neill are legally obligated to pay.
That's the second twist: That the debt collector sent a letter to another debt collector, who then claimed that the FDCPA had been violated.
The third twist was that Bullseye claimed that limiting its right to invoke a major religious figure on business letterhead violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutional. (Bullseye, and their counsel, must not be regular readers of my blog (yet), since I discussed here whether the First Amendment protected speech under the FDCPA.Hint: It doesn't.)
After that flurry of filing, the two sides did what most litigants do in most civil cases: They settled, and the case was dismissed. (Liberty Counsel said in a statement that "As a result [of the settlement], Bullseye remains free to use “WWJD” on its stationery, and its constitutional rights remain intact." That may be a bit far-reaching, given that the Court never ruled on any of the claims, and that Bullseyes claims were likewise dismissed ("with prejudice").So at this point, no court has ever ruled on whether Jesus would, or would not, pay his debts in a timely manner - -or whether raising that question violates federal law.
And, since you were going to ask, here's the (allegedly-but-now-dismissed) offending letter:
Update: Reader follow up and questions about this post are here.
2 comments: