Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
F.T.C. v. Check Investors, Inc.
502 F.3d 159
rights and benefits to Telecheck, and Telecheck then attempts to collect on the
defaulted check to reimburse itself for its payment.
Telecheck first attempts to collect by making three electronic re-presentments of
collector. Both the first and second debt collectors work on a contingency basis,
and, if successful, will receive one-third of the payment received. If the second
debt collector is also unsuccessful, Telecheck sells the rights it acquired from the
original merchant to Check Investors, and Check Investors initiates additional
collection efforts.
prison for attempting to collect debts by posing as an FBI agent), Sussman
theorized that if a debt collection business collected only debts it actually owned
based on purchasing NSF checks, it would not be subject to the FDCPA, and
would therefore be free to use collection techniques prohibited by the FDCPA
such as harassment and deception.
state.
Check Investors used both dunning letters and phone calls to collect debts.
However, its primary modus operandi was to accuse consumers of being
criminals or crooks, and threatening them with arrest and criminal or civil
prosecution. The collectors it employed were provided with a script that directed
This message is for the criminal check writer, Stephanie ______. If you think that
you could rip these merchants off with your hot checks and hide behind your
telephone, I guess you'll just have to explain to the judge why you stole from this
merchant, from [name of merchant], with your fraudulent check. At this moment,
we do not have any intentions of working this matter out with you voluntarily. You
an attorney. The letter informed the recipient that Hutchins had been retained by
a client who was considering taking criminal or civil action. Hutchins did not
actually send the letters or sign them, he had no idea about the number of letters
that were sent out purporting to be from him, and he made no inquiry about the
status of any of the debts underlying the letters that were sent. FN4
who allegedly wrote an NSF check for $14.70 that she would be “sitting in jail”
unless she immediately paid $144.70 (the amount of the original check plus
Check Investors' additional fee of $130). Faced with the threat, the consumer
paid the full amount demanded.
Check Investors' threats of prosecution were all false. It never notified law
old mother regarding her son's debt; fearing that her son would be arrested and
carted off to jail, she paid the amount of the demand. Another technique that
Check Investors employed can best be described as “saturation phoning.” One
consumer stated that Check Investors' collectors called him 17 times in 10
minutes. Collectors also used abusive language, referring to consumers as
Investors FN5 and Hutchins alleging that they had violated Section 5(a) of the
FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and various provisions the FDCPA, in their attempts
to collect from consumers who had written NSF checks. More specifically, the
FTC alleged that Check Investors was a “debt collector,” collecting “debts”, within
the meaning of the FDCPA. The complaint further alleged that, in the course of
alleged that many of the acts that violated the FDCPA also violated the FTC Act.
The FTC sought to enjoin Check Investors' conduct and obtain restitution for
injured consumers, including a refund of the money Check Investors had
collected using these techniques.
FN5. Barry Sussman's wife, Elisabeth Sussman, was also named as a
injunctive provisions and the asset freeze of the TRO.
FN6. Check Investors did not deny the tactics that FTC alleged. Rather, it
insisted that the NSF obligations it was attempting to collect were not subject to
the FDCPA or the FTC Act.
Both parties thereafter filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district
it had purchased outright from the original payees. According to Check Investors,
it was therefore acting as a creditor collecting its own obligations rather than as
debt collector collecting obligations owed to a third party.
Check Investors also argued that the payors on the NSF checks it had purchased
had violated state laws pertaining to presenting “bad checks” and by committing
held that persons who write NSF checks are entitled to the FDCPA's protections
in any event. The district court thus held that Check Investors was a “debt
collector” collecting “debts” within the meaning of the FDCPA, and that it was
therefore subject to the prohibitions that Act places on debt collectors' efforts to
collect debts. Finally, the court held that Check Investors made material
Hutchins (No. 05-3558), and Check Investors (No. 05-3957) appealed the court's
ruling.FN7
FN7. Check Investors has filed a brief in support of its appeal and has joined in
the brief filed by Hutchins.
III. THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
practices, including threats of violence, use of obscene language, certain
contacts with acquaintances of the consumer, late night phone calls, and
simulated legal process.” Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C.,
111 F.3d 1322, 1324 (7th Cir.1997) (citation omitted). “A basic tenet of the Act is
alia, that
[o]ne of the most frequent fallacies concerning debt collection legislation is the
contention that the primary beneficiaries are “deadbeats.” In fact, however, there
is universal agreement among scholars, law enforcement officials, and even debt
collectors that the number of persons who willfully refuse to pay debts is
Id. Congress also recognized that “[a]busive debt collection practices contribute
to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs,
and to invasions of individual privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a. Thus, Congress
concluded that “[t]he issue is not one of uncollected debts, but rather whether or
not consumers must lose their civil rights and be terrorized and abused by
deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the
collection of any debt,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e; or from using “unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt,” 15 U.S.C. §
1692f.
Within each broad category of prohibited conduct, the FDCPA includes examples
debt collector from falsely representing that a dunning letter was sent by an
attorney, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3), from falsely representing that nonpayment will
result in arrest or imprisonment, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4), or that a consumer
committed a crime, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(7). The prohibition on unfair or
unconscionable practices precludes a debt collector from adding any charge to
IV. THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
[1] Link to KeyCite Notes Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a),
prohibits, inter alia, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting
commerce.” Section 13(b), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), provides that “in proper cases the
Commission may seek, and after proper proof, the [district] court may issue, a
reality, however, it took Trans World about ninety days from the receipt of the first
letter to even consider whether legal action should be taken against any
individual debtor. Id.
The FTC issued an administrative complaint charging Trans World with the
commission of unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC
process. Id. On Trans World's petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit found, inter alia, that there was substantial evidence supporting the
finding of deception in the use of the letter format that closely resembled
telegrams, which letters threatened legal action when no action was
contemplated. Id. at 215.
to simulate legal documents, were deceptive in exploiting the assumption of
many low income debtors that anything that official-looking coming from
Washington, D.C., had been sent by the federal government.
V. DISCUSSION
Neither Check Investors nor Hutchins disputes the FTC's claim that they
FN8. These are purely legal questions over which we have plenary review.
Centerpoint Properties v. Montgomery Ward Holding Corp. (In re Montgomery
Ward Holding Corp.), 268 F.3d 205, 208 (3d Cir.2001).
FN9. Check Investors makes its own arguments in its appeal and has adopted
the arguments Hutchins makes in his appeal.
The FDCPA defines a “debt” as
any 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 to the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.
written on insufficient funds and not paid within a certain period after it has been
dishonored, or after the payor receives notice that it has been dishonored.
Appellants also stress that since writing a fraudulent check gives rise to tort
liability, and since they only attempted to collect NSF checks after a presumption
of knowledge or willfulness arose under state law, their NSF checks were not
household purposes.”
Four Courts of Appeals have rejected this argument. and held that payment with
a NSF check creates a “debt” as defined in the FDCPA. See Bass, 111 F.3d at
1322; Duffy v. Landberg, 133 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir.1998); Charles v. Lundgren &
Assocs., 119 F.3d 739 (9th Cir.1997); Snow v. Riddle, 143 F.3d 1350 (10th
focus on the clear and absolute language in the phrase, “any obligation to pay.”
Such absolute language may not be alternatively read to reference only a limited
set of obligations as appellants suggest. As long as the transaction creates an
obligation to pay, a debt is created. We harbor no doubt that a check evidences
the drawer's obligation to pay for the purchases made with the check, and should
1325).
[3] Link to KeyCite Notes Although we have not yet addressed this precise issue,
we have held that a transaction's status as a “debt” under the FDCPA must be
determined at the time that the obligation first arose. See Pollice v. National Tax
Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379, 400 (3d Cir.2000). In Pollice, we held that water and
in Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163 (3d Cir.1987). In
Zimmerman, we held that the FDCPA did not apply to attempts by cable
television companies to collect money from people who allegedly stole cable
television signals by installing illegal antennas. Id. at 1167-69. Check Investors
rights and benefits to Telecheck, and Telecheck then attempts to collect on the
defaulted check to reimburse itself for its payment.
Telecheck first attempts to collect by making three electronic re-presentments of
collector. Both the first and second debt collectors work on a contingency basis,
and, if successful, will receive one-third of the payment received. If the second
debt collector is also unsuccessful, Telecheck sells the rights it acquired from the
original merchant to Check Investors, and Check Investors initiates additional
collection efforts.
prison for attempting to collect debts by posing as an FBI agent), Sussman
theorized that if a debt collection business collected only debts it actually owned
based on purchasing NSF checks, it would not be subject to the FDCPA, and
would therefore be free to use collection techniques prohibited by the FDCPA
such as harassment and deception.
state.
Check Investors used both dunning letters and phone calls to collect debts.
However, its primary modus operandi was to accuse consumers of being
criminals or crooks, and threatening them with arrest and criminal or civil
prosecution. The collectors it employed were provided with a script that directed
This message is for the criminal check writer, Stephanie ______. If you think that
you could rip these merchants off with your hot checks and hide behind your
telephone, I guess you'll just have to explain to the judge why you stole from this
merchant, from [name of merchant], with your fraudulent check. At this moment,
we do not have any intentions of working this matter out with you voluntarily. You
an attorney. The letter informed the recipient that Hutchins had been retained by
a client who was considering taking criminal or civil action. Hutchins did not
actually send the letters or sign them, he had no idea about the number of letters
that were sent out purporting to be from him, and he made no inquiry about the
status of any of the debts underlying the letters that were sent. FN4
who allegedly wrote an NSF check for $14.70 that she would be “sitting in jail”
unless she immediately paid $144.70 (the amount of the original check plus
Check Investors' additional fee of $130). Faced with the threat, the consumer
paid the full amount demanded.
Check Investors' threats of prosecution were all false. It never notified law
old mother regarding her son's debt; fearing that her son would be arrested and
carted off to jail, she paid the amount of the demand. Another technique that
Check Investors employed can best be described as “saturation phoning.” One
consumer stated that Check Investors' collectors called him 17 times in 10
minutes. Collectors also used abusive language, referring to consumers as
Investors FN5 and Hutchins alleging that they had violated Section 5(a) of the
FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and various provisions the FDCPA, in their attempts
to collect from consumers who had written NSF checks. More specifically, the
FTC alleged that Check Investors was a “debt collector,” collecting “debts”, within
the meaning of the FDCPA. The complaint further alleged that, in the course of
alleged that many of the acts that violated the FDCPA also violated the FTC Act.
The FTC sought to enjoin Check Investors' conduct and obtain restitution for
injured consumers, including a refund of the money Check Investors had
collected using these techniques.
FN5. Barry Sussman's wife, Elisabeth Sussman, was also named as a
injunctive provisions and the asset freeze of the TRO.
FN6. Check Investors did not deny the tactics that FTC alleged. Rather, it
insisted that the NSF obligations it was attempting to collect were not subject to
the FDCPA or the FTC Act.
Both parties thereafter filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district
it had purchased outright from the original payees. According to Check Investors,
it was therefore acting as a creditor collecting its own obligations rather than as
debt collector collecting obligations owed to a third party.
Check Investors also argued that the payors on the NSF checks it had purchased
had violated state laws pertaining to presenting “bad checks” and by committing
held that persons who write NSF checks are entitled to the FDCPA's protections
in any event. The district court thus held that Check Investors was a “debt
collector” collecting “debts” within the meaning of the FDCPA, and that it was
therefore subject to the prohibitions that Act places on debt collectors' efforts to
collect debts. Finally, the court held that Check Investors made material
Hutchins (No. 05-3558), and Check Investors (No. 05-3957) appealed the court's
ruling.FN7
FN7. Check Investors has filed a brief in support of its appeal and has joined in
the brief filed by Hutchins.
III. THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
practices, including threats of violence, use of obscene language, certain
contacts with acquaintances of the consumer, late night phone calls, and
simulated legal process.” Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C.,
111 F.3d 1322, 1324 (7th Cir.1997) (citation omitted). “A basic tenet of the Act is
alia, that
[o]ne of the most frequent fallacies concerning debt collection legislation is the
contention that the primary beneficiaries are “deadbeats.” In fact, however, there
is universal agreement among scholars, law enforcement officials, and even debt
collectors that the number of persons who willfully refuse to pay debts is
Id. Congress also recognized that “[a]busive debt collection practices contribute
to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs,
and to invasions of individual privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a. Thus, Congress
concluded that “[t]he issue is not one of uncollected debts, but rather whether or
not consumers must lose their civil rights and be terrorized and abused by
deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the
collection of any debt,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e; or from using “unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt,” 15 U.S.C. §
1692f.
Within each broad category of prohibited conduct, the FDCPA includes examples
debt collector from falsely representing that a dunning letter was sent by an
attorney, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3), from falsely representing that nonpayment will
result in arrest or imprisonment, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4), or that a consumer
committed a crime, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(7). The prohibition on unfair or
unconscionable practices precludes a debt collector from adding any charge to
IV. THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
[1] Link to KeyCite Notes Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a),
prohibits, inter alia, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting
commerce.” Section 13(b), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), provides that “in proper cases the
Commission may seek, and after proper proof, the [district] court may issue, a
reality, however, it took Trans World about ninety days from the receipt of the first
letter to even consider whether legal action should be taken against any
individual debtor. Id.
The FTC issued an administrative complaint charging Trans World with the
commission of unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC
process. Id. On Trans World's petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit found, inter alia, that there was substantial evidence supporting the
finding of deception in the use of the letter format that closely resembled
telegrams, which letters threatened legal action when no action was
contemplated. Id. at 215.
to simulate legal documents, were deceptive in exploiting the assumption of
many low income debtors that anything that official-looking coming from
Washington, D.C., had been sent by the federal government.
V. DISCUSSION
Neither Check Investors nor Hutchins disputes the FTC's claim that they
FN8. These are purely legal questions over which we have plenary review.
Centerpoint Properties v. Montgomery Ward Holding Corp. (In re Montgomery
Ward Holding Corp.), 268 F.3d 205, 208 (3d Cir.2001).
FN9. Check Investors makes its own arguments in its appeal and has adopted
the arguments Hutchins makes in his appeal.
The FDCPA defines a “debt” as
any 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 to the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.
written on insufficient funds and not paid within a certain period after it has been
dishonored, or after the payor receives notice that it has been dishonored.
Appellants also stress that since writing a fraudulent check gives rise to tort
liability, and since they only attempted to collect NSF checks after a presumption
of knowledge or willfulness arose under state law, their NSF checks were not
household purposes.”
Four Courts of Appeals have rejected this argument. and held that payment with
a NSF check creates a “debt” as defined in the FDCPA. See Bass, 111 F.3d at
1322; Duffy v. Landberg, 133 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir.1998); Charles v. Lundgren &
Assocs., 119 F.3d 739 (9th Cir.1997); Snow v. Riddle, 143 F.3d 1350 (10th
focus on the clear and absolute language in the phrase, “any obligation to pay.”
Such absolute language may not be alternatively read to reference only a limited
set of obligations as appellants suggest. As long as the transaction creates an
obligation to pay, a debt is created. We harbor no doubt that a check evidences
the drawer's obligation to pay for the purchases made with the check, and should
1325).
[3] Link to KeyCite Notes Although we have not yet addressed this precise issue,
we have held that a transaction's status as a “debt” under the FDCPA must be
determined at the time that the obligation first arose. See Pollice v. National Tax
Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379, 400 (3d Cir.2000). In Pollice, we held that water and
in Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163 (3d Cir.1987). In
Zimmerman, we held that the FDCPA did not apply to attempts by cable
television companies to collect money from people who allegedly stole cable
television signals by installing illegal antennas. Id. at 1167-69. Check Investors
