On April 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion reversing in part a lower court’s dismissal. The district court dismissed a plaintiff’s (an individual) complaint against a mortgage loan servicer for violations of the FDCPA and a similar West Virginia law. The plaintiff filed a class action suit after the defendant allegedly attempted to collect on a late fee over five years old. The defendant’s attempt came after the plaintiff obtained a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge order, but the defendant refused to accept the plaintiff’s other payments on the mortgage. Despite obtaining the discharge order, the plaintiff allegedly received two letters from the defendant concerning his mortgage loan late fee, which the plaintiff argued were attempts to collect a debt — in violation of the FDCPA.

The district court dismissed the complaint, reasoning the letters that the plaintiff received were not attempts to collect a consumer debt and that the plaintiff was no longer a “consumer” with a “debt” under the FDCPA due to the bankruptcy discharge. In addition, the district court found the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a “false, deceptive, or misleading” claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e because the plaintiff failed to identify which § 1692e subsection the defendant violated. However, the district court did find the plaintiff adequately pled a “unfair or unconscionable means” claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f because the defendant attempted to collect an amount not permitted by law.

The 4th Circuit reversed in part and remanded. The court found the plaintiff remained a “consumer” with a “debt” because the mortgage lien survived the bankruptcy discharge as an enforceable obligation. The court reversed the district court’s opinion and held that the defendant’s letters constituted attempts to collect a debt, as the letters included demands for payment and were steps in enforcing a mortgage lien. However, the 4th Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s 15 U.S.C. § 1692e claim because the plaintiff failed to identify any misleading representations as well as the district court’s holding that the plaintiff had adequately stated a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. In addition, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the state-law claim because it held the servicer was attempting to collect a debt. The case was remanded for further proceedings.