MEMORANDUM
CONFIDENTIAL
Attorney Work Product
TO: Samantha Ryan
FROM: Sam Student
RE: William Montaigne; Abusive collection practices under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act
DATE: September 9, 2017
FACTS William Montaigne defaulted on a $24,500 college student loan. Ms. Kirk of Collegiate Debt Collection Service called Montaigne and demanded payment on the loan. This was Kirk’s first call to Montaigne. Montaigne responded that he would begin repayment as soon as he “had his feet on the ground.” Kirk told him this was unacceptable and she would have to examine his job status and finances. Kirk also told Montaigne that he could not expect a “free ride on the government” and that it was “people like [him] who [drive] up the cost of a college education.” …show more content…
Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., 15 F.3d 1507, 1515-16 (9th Cir. 1994). When applying this test, language is interpreted under an objective standard where context is irrelevant. E.g., id.; Baker v. G. C. Servs. Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 1982). For example, under the least sophisticated debtor standard, comments such as “crooks and people like [you] . . . give credit a bad name” and “people like you screw up the world because you don’t pay your bills” are construed as harassment. United States v. Credit Adjustment Bureau, 667 F. Supp. 370, 388-91 (N.D. Tex. 1986).
Kirk’s comments were similar in both tone and content to the remarks in Credit Adjustment Bureau. It does not matter that Kirk called Montaigne within the proper time period allowed by the statute or that this was her first call. Because context is irrelevant in determining harassment, only the language as interpreted by the least sophisticated debtor is to be considered. Kirk’s comments such as “free ride” and “people like you” would be considered harassment to the least sophisticated
CONFIDENTIAL
Attorney Work Product
TO: Samantha Ryan
FROM: Sam Student
RE: William Montaigne; Abusive collection practices under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act
DATE: September 9, 2017
FACTS William Montaigne defaulted on a $24,500 college student loan. Ms. Kirk of Collegiate Debt Collection Service called Montaigne and demanded payment on the loan. This was Kirk’s first call to Montaigne. Montaigne responded that he would begin repayment as soon as he “had his feet on the ground.” Kirk told him this was unacceptable and she would have to examine his job status and finances. Kirk also told Montaigne that he could not expect a “free ride on the government” and that it was “people like [him] who [drive] up the cost of a college education.” …show more content…
Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., 15 F.3d 1507, 1515-16 (9th Cir. 1994). When applying this test, language is interpreted under an objective standard where context is irrelevant. E.g., id.; Baker v. G. C. Servs. Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 1982). For example, under the least sophisticated debtor standard, comments such as “crooks and people like [you] . . . give credit a bad name” and “people like you screw up the world because you don’t pay your bills” are construed as harassment. United States v. Credit Adjustment Bureau, 667 F. Supp. 370, 388-91 (N.D. Tex. 1986).
Kirk’s comments were similar in both tone and content to the remarks in Credit Adjustment Bureau. It does not matter that Kirk called Montaigne within the proper time period allowed by the statute or that this was her first call. Because context is irrelevant in determining harassment, only the language as interpreted by the least sophisticated debtor is to be considered. Kirk’s comments such as “free ride” and “people like you” would be considered harassment to the least sophisticated