Condo Law Watch

Complying with Fair Debt Collections Practices Act Hits Closer to Home Than Before

This past summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that filing a collection case in a Cook County district court other than the one where the debtor lives or the contract was signed violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”).  Before that ruling, debt collectors’ regular practice — approved by an earlier Seventh Circuit opinion — was to file in any of the six municipal districts in the County, not necessarily in a particular district courthouse.  However, the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 757 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2014), overruled that prior holding and made the new decision retroactive to cases on file when the opinion came down in July.In Suesz, a consumer named Mark Suesz filed a class action lawsuit against Med-1 Solutions, LLC, alleging that Med-1’s regular business practice was to file lawsuits in small claims courts located in townships where the consumer neither lives nor signed the contract that created the debt, which, he alleged, violates the FDCPA. Suesz lives in Hancock County, Indiana.  He had entered into a contract with a hospital in Marion County, Indiana.  That county is divided into several townships, each of which has its own small claims court. Med-1 Solutions, LLC sued Suesz for his outstanding debt in Pike Township Small Claims Court.  Community North Hospital, which hired Med-1 to recover the debt, is located in Lawrence Township.  The FDCPA requires debt collectors to sue consumers in the “judicial district or similar legal entity” where the consumer lives or where the consumer signed the contract being sued on.  15 U.S.C. §1692i(a)(2).Although Suesz discusses the structure of Marion County and Indiana’s courts, the opinion applies to any county that has multiple courthouses where small claims cases are heard.  The Suesz court noted that the FDCPA does not define the term “judicial district.”  After a lengthy discussion of the various means of defining the term, the Seventh Circuit held that “the relevant judicial district or similar legal entity is the smallest geographic unit relevant for venue purposes in the court system in which the case was filed, regardless of the source of the venue rules.”  “The FDCPA takes the state courts as it finds them,” the court wrote.  The Court stated that, even though a local rule or statute might allow a debt collector to file a lawsuit in a venue that is prohibited under the FDCPA, that fact would not excuse compliance with the Act.

The Suesz court also expressly overruled its prior ruling in Newsom v. Friedman, 76 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 1996), which had held that the six municipal districts in the Circuit Court of Cook County were not judicial districts under the Act.  Prior to the ruling in Suesz, debt collectors could file any of their small claims actions against Cook County residents at the Daley Center, which services Cook County’s First Municipal District.

With Newsom overruled, debt collectors have been filing motions to transfer venue on many small collection matters.  As a result, it is likely that the other courthouses in Cook County will see a large influx of collection cases.

What it particularly concerning is that Suesz applies retroactively.  In Suesz, Med-1 asked the Seventh Circuit to only overrule Newsom prospectively because debt collectors had been relying on Newsom when filing their lawsuits.  The Seventh Circuit declined to do so.

The Seventh Circuit’s refusal to apply the Suesz ruling only prospectively creates a significant problem for debt collectors in Cook County.  Many of the small collection cases on file at the Daley Center as of July 2, 2014, when Suesz was handed down, could potentially violate the FDCPA’s venue provisions.  Any lawsuit that should have been filed at the courthouses located in Skokie, Maywood, Rolling Meadows, Bridgeview, or Markham could trigger liability under the FDCPA. Transferring cases to the appropriate Municipal District may cure a violation of the FDCPA; however, the FDCPA is a strict liability statute and merely filing the case in the wrong venue triggers liability.

© 2023 Tressler LLPDisclaimer | Privacy Policy

Tressler Blog Network Bad Faith BulletinCGL DispatchLocal Government LowdownPrivacy Risk ReportThe Property LineSpecialty Lines Advisory