Court rules that student loan debt collector cannot call family members to get consumer to call them
On September 25, 2020, Judge William F. Kuntz, II issued an Order granting summary judgment for Plaintiffs Diandra Rivera and Jeanette Vega as to their claims against student loan debt collector Financial Asset Management Services (“FAMS”) for impermissibly calling family members in its attempts to collect the alleged debt and for making debt collection calls during the lawsuit.
On March 28, 2016, FAMS attempted to call Plaintiff Diandra Rivera to attempt to collect the debt. She did not answer the phone, and FAMS got her voicemail, noting that the voicemail confirmed that this was the phone number for her. Immediately after, FAMS then called Ms. Rivera’s grandmother. The call greatly distress Ms. Rivera’s grandmother, as she states that FAMS told her Ms. Rivera was in trouble. After her grandmother hung up on FAMS, FAMS then called Ms. Rivera’s uncle. FAMS told him that he was a reference for FAMS to get in contact with Ms. Rivera. After that call, the uncle called Ms. Rivera. He was distressed because he thought that Ms. Rivera had given out his personal information, and this was very embarrassing and stressful for Ms. Rivera.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits phone calls by debt collectors to third parties in attempts to collect the debt. There is only one exception to this prohibition – if a debt collector needs to get contact information for a consumer that allegedly owes a debt, it is allowed to call a third party to get that information.
FAMS argued the calls it made to Ms. Rivera’s grandmother and uncle were to get Ms. Rivera’s contact information, and thus not a violation of the FDCPA. But Judge Kuntz noted that FAMS already had Ms. Rivera’s phone number, and had confirmed that was her phone number when it got her voicemail identifying it as her phone number. The Judge further held that the debt collector’s true intent came out in its call to Ms. Rivera’s uncle:
“Defendant then compounded its error by failing to object when [the uncle] stated ‘Okay. I’ll get in contact with her and I’ll tell her.’ Indeed, Defendant’s response of ‘[a]ll right. Thank you,’ is demonstrative of its true intent ‘to obtain a debtor-initiated contact, something the debtor may or may not have done on his own, or in response to a dunning letter with full disclosures.'”
The FDCPA prohibition on third party calls was enacted in part to prevent this abusive method of obtaining debtor-initiated contact by calling family members to embarrass the consumer into calling the debt collector to stop more calls to family members. We are pleased that the Court was able to see through FAMS’s argument that the calls were merely to obtain contact information and were actually done to get Plaintiffs to call FAMS. The Plaintiffs in this case have not only been great advocates for their own rights, but have also spoken out to the media about harmful debt collection practices like using social media to contact consumers. We are proud to represent them and other consumers who have had debt collectors illegally call family and other third parties.
If debt collectors are calling your family about a debt you allegedly you owe, please call (718) 522-7900 to set up a consultation. We are located at 16 Court St., 26th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11241 and represent consumers throughout the New York City area. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
