In Worsham v. Accounts Receivable Management, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23491 (Nov. 14, 2012), the Fourth Circuit recently addressed whether a debt collector’s continued calls to a debtor’s family member violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”) when the debt collector reasonably believed that it had not received a complete response as to the whereabouts of the debtor. In Worsham, a debt collector, while trying to locate a debtor, discovered a phone number as a possible contact for the debtor. The phone number actually belonged to the debtor’s brother-in-law. The debt collector used an automated dialer to call the brother-in-law ten (10) times. While the brother-in-law answered a couple of the calls and followed several voice prompts, he never completed a call by speaking with a live representative to inform the collector that he had the wrong number.
Based on these phone calls, the brother-in-law filed suit alleging violations of the FDCPA, the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “MTCPA”). In affirming the granting of the debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, the Fourth Circuit held that § 1692b(3) of the FDCPA allowed the debt collector to continue calling the brother-in-law until it reasonably believed that it had received a complete response. Since the debt collector’s calls were permitted under § 1692b, his remaining claims under the FDCPA failed.
While the FDCPA permits telephone calls to third parties to obtain location information, collectors should still be careful. The collector prevailed in Worsham because the third party never progressed through all of the prompts to speak with a live representative to inform him that the number being called did not belong to the debtor. Worsham should not to be confused with a scenario where a third party claims not to know the whereabouts of the debtor and the collector, not believing the third party, continues to call.
In Worsham v. Accounts Receivable Management, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23491 (Nov. 14, 2012), the Fourth Circuit recently addressed whether a debt collector’s continued calls to a debtor’s family member violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”) when the debt collector reasonably believed that it had not received a complete response as to the whereabouts of the debtor. In Worsham, a debt collector, while trying to locate a debtor, discovered a phone number as a possible contact for the debtor. The phone number actually belonged to the debtor’s brother-in-law. The debt collector used an automated dialer to call the brother-in-law ten (10) times. While the brother-in-law answered a couple of the calls and followed several voice prompts, he never completed a call by speaking with a live representative to inform the collector that he had the wrong number.
Based on these phone calls, the brother-in-law filed suit alleging violations of the FDCPA, the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “MTCPA”). In affirming the granting of the debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, the Fourth Circuit held that § 1692b(3) of the FDCPA allowed the debt collector to continue calling the brother-in-law until it reasonably believed that it had received a complete response. Since the debt collector’s calls were permitted under § 1692b, his remaining claims under the FDCPA failed.
While the FDCPA permits telephone calls to third parties to obtain location information, collectors should still be careful. The collector prevailed in Worsham because the third party never progressed through all of the prompts to speak with a live representative to inform him that the number being called did not belong to the debtor. Worsham should not to be confused with a scenario where a third party claims not to know the whereabouts of the debtor and the collector, not believing the third party, continues to call.