District court: Debt collector must disclose partial payment or promise to pay will restart statute of limitations

Courts Debt Collection FDCPA Time-Barred Debt

On September 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA action, ruling that a debt collector (defendant) was required to disclose that a partial payment or new promise to pay would restart the statute of limitations under state law. The plaintiff received a dunning letter from the defendant seeking to collect time-barred credit card debt. A disclaimer included in the letter, which presented several options to resolve the debt, stated: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt and how long a debt can appear on your credit report. Due to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it or report payment or non-payment of it to a credit bureau. In addition, we will not restart the statute of limitations on the debt if you make a payment.” The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA, claiming that the disclosure language was misleading and deceptive because it failed to disclose (i) “the effect of partial payment on the statute of limitations”; (ii) “that the statute of limitations on the debt had run”; and (iii) “that no information about the debt could be reported to credit bureaus.” The defendant countered that the first two sentences of the disclosure were included pursuant to a consent order with the CFPB and “that its policy is to continue treating a time-barred debt as expired even if a consumer makes a partial payment.” The defendant further argued that there was “no potential ‘pitfall’ to partial payment” because of its policy not to restart the statute of limitations when a partial payment was made, and that its “explicit promise that it will not sue even if Plaintiff makes a payment dispels any potential confusion.”

The court disagreed, finding that the defendant’s promise not to restart the statute of limitations without disclosing that a partial payment or a promise to pay would restart the statute was “misleading and deceptive” under Illinois law. The court also ruled that the plaintiff “is not expected to know [the defendant’s] internal policies regarding suing on debts where the statute of limitations has run or rely on its promises to not pursue a debt collectible in court after the statute of limitations protection has been forfeited.” The defendant’s policy, the court stated, does not obviate the “need to explain the mechanics of reviving the statute of limitations under Illinois law.”