District Court rules use of “obligation” in collection letter carries “litigious connotations”

Courts Debt Collection FDCPA Consumer Finance

On August 11, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a defendant debt collector’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that using the word “obligation” in a letter suggested that a time-barred debt was legally enforceable. The plaintiff received a letter in 2022 seeking to recover unpaid debt that had been in default since August 2017 (the statute of limitations for collecting the debt had expired in August 2021). The letter included language stating: “We recognize that a possible hardship or pitfall may have prevented you from satisfying your obligation. We are presenting three options to resolve your balance. We are not obligated to renew this offer.” The letter also stated that it was an attempt to collect a debt and that “any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” The plaintiff sued for violations of Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA, claiming the defendant’s letter offered payment options for time-barred debt. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that that the claims fail because the letter did not include language that could lead the plaintiff to believe that the time-barred debt could be legally enforced.

The court reviewed whether the phrase “satisfying your obligation” would confuse the least sophisticated debtor, and eventually determined that the word “obligation” carried “litigious connotations” and therefore was “closer to ‘settlement’ and other impermissible language than it is to permissible language such as ‘satisfy.’” According to the court, “[i]t is more than plausible, and even likely, that the least sophisticated debtor would understand that their ‘obligation’ is a duty to pay that a creditor could enforce in court through the commencement of litigation.” The court also explained that Congress intended “obligation” as used in the FDCPA to mean “a legal duty arising from mutual promises to pay on the one hand and to perform services or provide goods on the other,” including “one susceptible to being ‘reduced to judgement.’” As such, the court concluded that when viewing the letter in its entirety, it appeared to be “carefully crafted to push the envelope of acceptable language under the FDCPA while maximizing the chance of collecting from debtors.”