Shorty and Brady Cases

[David A. Szwak]

Debt collector may attempt to collect on a time-barred (expired) debt, as long the debt collector does not falsely misrepresent the status of the debt nor threaten further action. Shorty v Capital One Bank (2000, DC NM) 90 F Supp 2d 1330; Brady v Credit Recovery Co. (1998, DC Mass) 26 F Supp 2d 201, revd, remanded (1998, CA1 Mass) 160 F3d 64.

[David A. Szwak]

Plaintiff claims that CFC violated these statutory sections by knowingly attempting to collect on a time-barred debt. In support of his argument, Plaintiff cites, inter alia, two cases from this district. [**6] See Stepney v. Outsourcing Solutions, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18264, No. 97 C 5288, 1997 WL 722972 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 1997) and Taylor v. Unifund, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13651, No. 98 C 5921 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 1999). In Stepney, the defendant sent the plaintiff a form letter seeking to collect on a past due amount of $ 1,026.28 that was over thirteen years old. 1997 WL 722972, at *1. The letter stated: "THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE YOUR ACCOUNT WITH NO FURTHER COLLECTION ACTION BEING TAKEN AGAINST YOU." Id. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss because "Stepney alleged the violation of the FDCPA based on defendant's knowing attempt to collect time-barred debt with threats of 'further collection, action.'" Id. at *5 (emphasis added). Taylor also involved a claim that the defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on a time-barred debt. The court in that case denied defendant's motion to dismiss, but, unfortunately, its order did not detail the allegations in the complaint or the language of the collection letter at issue. Walker v. Cash Flow Consultants, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 613, 615 (D. Ill. 2001)