Haney v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., No. 15-1932 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against PRA, a debt collector, and its attorneys, Gamache, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The district court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The court concluded that nothing inherent in the process of charging off a debt precludes a claim for statutory interest, and Missouri’s prejudgment interest statute does not expressly preclude statutory prejudgment interest following a waiver of contractual interest. Therefore, defendants' demands for such interest were not actionable misrepresentations or unfair or unconscionable collection methods under sections 1692e or 1692f. Because the court held that the original creditors’ acts of charging off the debts did not effectuate waivers of statutory interest, the assignments of the debt to PRA did not “create” the entitlement to statutory prejudgment interest. The court concluded that the assignments merely transferred any entitlement to such interest that otherwise existed. The court further concluded that any demand requirement that exists as a precondition to the accrual of statutory prejudgment interest was satisfied by the original creditors’ demands upon plaintiff. The court held that there exists no de minimis exception to FDCPA liability based upon low dollar amounts; and debt collectors’ false representations about the availability of remedies or amounts owed under state law, like representations of fact, are to be viewed through the unsophisticated-consumer standard and may be actionable pursuant to the FDCPA. Applying these holdings to the present case, the court concluded that plaintiff has articulated viable section 1692e and 1692f(1) claims by alleging false statements and collection attempts regarding the availability of compound interest. Accordingly, the court reversed as to these claims, rejected plaintiff's remaining claims, and affirmed in all other respects.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Melloy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Missouri statutory prejudgment interest remains available following the charge-off of a credit card debt; because the original creditors' acts of charging off the debts did not effectuate wavier of statutory interest, the assignment of the debt to defendant merely transferred the entitlement to such interest to defendant; any demand requirement that exists as precondition to the accrual of statutory prejudgment interest was satisfied by the original creditors' demands on plaintiff; plaintiff did state a claim that defendants' attempt to collect statutory prejudgment interest on the interest portion of the charge-off balance violated Missouri restrictions on the collection of compound interest, and the court erred in dismissing the counts alleging this claim; plaintiff has established viable Section 1692e and Section 1692f(1) claims by alleging false statements and collection attempts regarding the availability of compound interest; defendant's prayers for relief in its state court actions were not false representations or an unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Judge Melloy, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.