Gradisher v. Check Enforcement

[David A. Szwak]

Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc.
210 F.Supp.2d 907
W.D.Mich.,2002.
April 05, 2002

D. False Implication that Nonpayment Will Result in Arrest or Imprisonment

Gradisher's next claim is that CEU violated the FDCPA by implying that Gradisher would be arrested or imprisoned if she failed to pay the debt. Gradisher contends that CEU's notices violated § 1692e (4) and (5), which proscribe:
(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.
*915 (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4) and (5).
The front side of the Due Process Notice contained the following language:
This letter notifies you that the following check(s) have been returned from your financial institution as insufficient funds or account closed, which is a violation of law····
Violations of check laws are administered for our department at the Law Enforcement Processing Center. Repayment of the check(s) plus the bank fee and government assessment fee is required····
(Due Process Notice, PSMF Ex. A.) The back side of the Due Process Notice stated:


WARNING

A local check law is in effect for the passing of bad checks. The law states that you are required to pay the full amount of the check plus fees ···

* * * * * *



Failure To Make Payment Can Result In A Warrant For Your Arrest


( Id.) The front side of the Final Notice stated: “You have failed to respond to the notice sent to you by the Law Enforcement Processing Center. You are now in violation of criminal law. Immediate payment is necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the law.â€