9th Circuit Explains Camacho — Says Validation Notice that Implies, but Does Not Require, Dispute to be in Writing Passes Muster under FDCPA

In Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, A Law Corp. — F.3d —-, 2012 WL 2054640 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA if his letter starting collection efforts states expressly that the debtor must dispute the debt in writing within 30 days or have the debt deemed valid. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial Inc.  430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005).  But, in Rigss, the Court of Appeals held that if the collector’s letter merely implies–or could be understood by the least sophisticated debtor to imply–that the debtor must dispute the debt in writing, the collector does not violate the FDCPA.  The FDCPA itself is unclear on this point, and a debt collector shouldn’t be held to a higher standard of clarity.) The 9th Circuit noted the circuit split, noting that the Third Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion: “[S]ubsection (a)(3) must be read to require that a dispute, to be effective, must be in writing.” Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 112 (3d Cir.1991). The Supreme Court recently recognized this split but declined to resolve it. Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1605, 1610; nn. 2–3, 176 L.Ed.2d 519 (2010).