District Court (Cal.) Says Debt Collector’s Offer Letter on Out-of-State Debt Was Not Deceptive

In Miran v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., 2016 WL 7210382, at *5 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Battaglia found that a debt collector’s offer letter on an out-of-statute debt did not violate the FDCPA because it was neither deceptive nor threatened to sue.

Finding that the issue of novation is a factual question undeterminable by the evidence presented by Plaintiff, the Court looks to the face of the Offer letter to see if it violates the FDCPA. On the first page the letter states, “Our client has advised us that they are willing to settle your account for 15% of your total balance due to settle your past balance.” (Doc. No. 16-3 at 2.) The Offer letter then identifies the payment opportunity plans as settlement offers. (Id. at 3.) On the next page, standing alone, in between two blocks of white space, the Offer letter states “Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it, and we will not report it to any credit reporting agency.” (Id. at 4.) Accordingly, on its face, the Offer Letter does not misrepresent the character or amount of Plaintiff’s debt. Nor does the Offer letter show that Convergent used any false representation or deceptive means to collect the debt or obtain information concerning Plaintiff. Moreover, the Offer letter, provided on its letterhead, notes the original creditor (Citibank)⁶ , current creditor (Galaxy Asset Purchasing, LLC), and collection agency (Convergent). (Id. at 2.) Thus, on its face, the Court does not find the Offer letter to be deceptive, misleading or false. On a final note, the Court highlights that seeking voluntary repayment of a time-barred debt “so long as the debt collector does not initiate or threaten legal action in connection with its debt collection efforts” is not considered a violation of the FDCPA in the third and eight circuits. See Huertas v. Galaxy Asset. Mgmt., 641 F.3d 28, 33–34 (3rd Cir. 2011); see also Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 248 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 2001). Therefore, Convergent’s incorporation of its waiver of its right to sue, further supports a finding that the Offer letter did not violate the FDCPA.