Punitive Damages? No

[David A. Szwak]

The FDCPA does not provide for punitive damages.

In re Nangle, US BAP 8th Cir. 2001
www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/006068P.pdf

[David A. Szwak]

257 BR 276, 289

[David A. Szwak]

"The Plaintiff cites Thomas v. Pierce, Hamilton, and Stern, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 507, 509 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ga. 1997), for the proposition that punitive damages are recoverable under the FDCPA. The Thomas court held "The only reasonable reading of 'additional,' considering the ordinary meaning of the term, is that 'additional damages' includes punitive damages and that the discretionary statutory award is meant to preclude a separate award of punitive damages." Id. The Thomas court goes on to say "inferring that Congress intended to allow punitive damages under the FDCPA would create an absurd and anomalous result." Id. at 512. The holding of Thomas cuts against the Plaintiff's argument that punitive damages are available under the FDCPA. Several other cases have also held that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA. See Gervais v. O'Connell, Harris & Associates, Inc., 297 F.Supp.2d 435, 440 (U.S.D.C. Conn. 2003); Boyce v. Attorney's Dispatch Service, C-39-94-397, WestLaw 33495605, at 2 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Ohio 1999); Aronson v. Creditrust Corp., 7 F.Supp.2d 589, 594 (W.D.Pa.1998). In Aronson, the court held "punitive damages are not recoverable under the FDCPA and therefore, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in relationship to his FDCPA claims is granted and said request ordered stricken from the Complaint." Id. This Court agrees that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA. The "additional damages" award of the FDCPA is meant to preclude a separate award of punitive damages. The legislature has already provided a statutory damage remedy that is punitive in nature. Allowing an additional separate award of punitive damages would be contrary to legislative intent and would render the limited statutory remedy of "additional damages" unnecessary. Because this Court concludes that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA, the Defendant's motion to strike paragraph 21 and the Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages under the FDCPA is granted. Therefore, paragraph 21 is stricken from the Complaint in its entirety; the item in Plaintiff's prayer "D. for punitive and exemplary damages," is stricken from the Complaint under the FDCPA cause of action." Wood v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WestLaw 3159639 [U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. 2005].

[David A. Szwak]

Spicer v. Lenehan,
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 3112554, D.Conn., Sep 14, 2004

No punitives.

[David A. Szwak]

PUNITIVE DAMAGES?

The FDCPA does not provide for punitive damages. In re Nangle, 281 BR. 654, 658 [US BAP 8th Cir. 2001] - www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/006068P.pdf; Bynum v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, L.L.C., Slip Copy, 2006 WestLaw 897712 [U.S.D.C. N.D. Okla. 2006].

"The Plaintiff cites Thomas v. Pierce, Hamilton, and Stern, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 507, 509 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ga. 1997), for the proposition that punitive damages are recoverable under the FDCPA. The Thomas court held "The only reasonable reading of 'additional,' considering the ordinary meaning of the term, is that 'additional damages' includes punitive damages and that the discretionary statutory award is meant to preclude a separate award of punitive damages." Id. The Thomas court goes on to say "inferring that Congress intended to allow punitive damages under the FDCPA would create an absurd and anomalous result." Id. at 512. The holding of Thomas cuts against the Plaintiff's argument that punitive damages are available under the FDCPA. Several other cases have also held that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA. See Gervais v. O'Connell, Harris & Associates, Inc., 297 F.Supp.2d 435, 440 (U.S.D.C. Conn. 2003); Boyce v. Attorney's Dispatch Service, C-39-94-397, WestLaw 33495605, at 2 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Ohio 1999); Aronson v. Creditrust Corp., 7 F.Supp.2d 589, 594 (W.D.Pa.1998). In Aronson, the court held "punitive damages are not recoverable under the FDCPA and therefore, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in relationship to his FDCPA claims is granted and said request ordered stricken from the Complaint." Id. This Court agrees that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA. The "additional damages" award of the FDCPA is meant to preclude a separate award of punitive damages. The legislature has already provided a statutory damage remedy that is punitive in nature. Allowing an additional separate award of punitive damages would be contrary to legislative intent and would render the limited statutory remedy of "additional damages" unnecessary. Because this Court concludes that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA, the Defendant's motion to strike paragraph 21 and the Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages under the FDCPA is granted. Therefore, paragraph 21 is stricken from the Complaint in its entirety; the item in Plaintiff's prayer "D. for punitive and exemplary damages," is stricken from the Complaint under the FDCPA cause of action." Wood v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WestLaw 3159639 [U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. 2005].

[David A. Szwak]

In re Nangle
257 B.R. 276
8th Cir.BAP (Mo.),2001.
January 04, 2001

The jury verdict in favor of Siemer does not state whether it was based upon Count I (federal claim) or Count II (federal and *284 state claims combined) of the complaint.FN9 Although, the type of damages awarded, for “mental distress, embarrassment···,â€