A Borrower Is Not A Victim.

A woman failed to make her car payments.  The car was repossessed and sold, and the bank hired a debt collector to collect the remainder of what was owed.  The debt collector’s letter included the following language:  “Please be advised that if you notify my office in writing within 30 days that all or a part of your obligation or judgment . . . is disputed, then I will mail to you written verification of the obligation. . . If I do not hear from you within 30 days, I will assume that your debt. . . is valid.”  The woman filed a motion to dismiss the action brought on behalf of the lender to collect the debt, arguing collection violations.  The debt action was dismissed.  Later, the woman sued in federal court for unfair debt collection practices which required her to dispute her debt in writing.  The Fair Debt collection Practices Act [FDCPA; 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.] and its California equivalent the Rosenthal Act [Civil Code § 1788] prohibit a debt collector from requiring written disputes.  In this case, the district court dismissed the woman’s action, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the debt collector must “expressly require a consumer to dispute her debt in writing” and here it was merely implied.  Riggs v. Prober & Raphael  (Ninth Cir.; June 8, 2012) 681 F.3d 1097.