Letters on the Letterhead of the State or District Attorney

[David A. Szwak]

Litigation pending in California, Florida, Indiana, and Iowa challenges of the practices of an entity which pursuant to contracts with the county or other government body send letters on the letterhead of the state or district attorney seeking to recover the face amount of dishonored checks plus various fees. Liles v. American Corrective Counseling Servs., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Iowa 2001); Rosario v. Am. Collective Counseling Services., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13455 (U.S.D.C. M.D.Fla., 8/27/01). These letters are challenged for failing to provide the validation notice, debt collection warning, impersonating government officials, stating the consumer has committed crime, threatening action that cannot be legally taken or is not intended to be taken, etc. The U.S District Court for the Western District of Michigan has held that the practices of Check Enforcement Unit, Inc. which had contracted with the county or other government body to send letters on the letterhead of the sheriff or police department to recover the face amount of dishonored checks plus a government assessment fee violated the FDCPA. Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6003 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 2002) (violations of the FDCPA); 203 FRAT 271 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 2001) (class certified); 133 F.Supp.2d 988 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 2001) (CEU is a debt collector). Also, see: Passa v. City of Columbus, - F.3d -, 2005 WestLaw 372305, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2832 (6th Cir. 2005) (Dismissal of FDCPA and OCSPA claims regarding the city’s Check Resolution and Mediation Program was reversed and remanded because the city’s website was not a public record of which judicial notice would be appropriate during a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.).