News

June 21, 2013

Illinois Appellate Decision Seen as Major Victory for Debt Buyers and Collectors

The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District Tuesday issued an opinion in a case that challenges state law requirements for bringing debt collection law suits against consumers. The opinion, while technically a loss for the debt buyer plaintiff, is seen as “a clear victory for collection agencies and debt buyers operating in Illinois.”

Decided by the Appellate Court’s First District, which covers the inner core of the Chicagoland area, the opinion in Unifund v. Shah was actually addressed the second appeal of the case. At issue was the application of a specific section (8b) of the Illinois Collection Agency Act (ICAA).

The case originated as a debt collection lawsuit filed by debt buyer Unifund over a $16,000 Citibank credit card debt issued to defendant Shah. After finding its way to the appeals level, the First District originally ruled that a collection agency has standing to sue as an assignee for collection but further determined that the ICAA did not allow the agency to rely on an affidavit from the assignee to prove ownership, and instead required the agency to produce the assignment of the account as an exhibit to the lawsuit and to provide the consideration paid for the assignment.

The appeal brought the attention of ARM industry groups, with NARCA filing an amicus brief written by Michael L. Starzec of Blitt and Gaines, P.C. and Christopher R. DiPlacido of Resurgence Legal Group, P.C., and ACA International likewise filing a brief prepared by Joseph Messer and Nicole Strickler of Messer & Stilp, Ltd.

The arguments from the industry groups centered around Section 8b’s applicability to purchased debt. Messer & Stilp argued that the plain language of Section 8b indicates the legislature intended to exclude sales of an account to a debt buyer from the Section’s reach. Thus, to state a cause of action in a collection lawsuit a debt buyer, unlike an assignee for collection, need not comply with Section 8b.

A three-judge panel agreed, writing, “do section 8b’s requirements apply to all assignments in the chain of title for a debt, or do they apply only to assignments for collection? We decide that it is the latter.”

The panel did, however, ultimately dismiss Unifund’s case against Shah because some of the documentation presented by Unifund was redacted. “Plaintiff’s failure to include unredacted copies of the documents that contain the consideration terms and account information for the assignments prevents us from reviewing plaintiff’s claim that the assignments satisfy section 8b,” wrote the judges.

“Although not a landslide victory for Unifund, the decision was a clear victory for collection agencies and debt buyers operating in Illinois as the Appellate Court agreed with our argument that Section 8b applies only to assignments for collection and not to outright sales,” wrote Messer & Stilp in discussing the case. “The decision clarifies the law for collectors and debt buyers and establishes a workable framework for collectors who take assignments for collection from debt buyers.”

The Appellate Court found that a collector who takes legal title to an account as an assignee for collection must comply with Section 8b. Specifically to plead a valid assignment for collection the collector must plead that the document manifesting the assignment identifies (1) the accounts transferred, (2) the consideration paid, and (3) the effective date of the transfer.

www.insidearm.com


More...

The above statements do not represent those of Weston Legal or Michael Weston and they have not been reviewed for accuracy. The statements have been published by a third party and are being linked to by our website only because they contain information relating to debt. Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice given by Weston Legal or Michael Weston. To view the source of the article, please following the link to the website that published the article. Articles written by Michael W. Weston can be viewed here: To report any problem with this article please email creditcardlawsuit@westonlegal.com

 

Texas

BELLAIRE OFFICE
5001 Bissonnet,
Suite 200
Bellaire, Texas 77401

Phone 713.623.4242
Fax 866-579-6411
Principal Office
Email Email
SAN ANTONIO OFFICE
9901 I.H. 10 West
Suite 800
San Antonio, Texas 78230

Phone 210.787.3539
Fax 866-579-6411
by appointment only
Email Email
AUSTIN OFFICE
106 E. Sixth Street
Suite 900
Austin, Texas 78701

Phone 512.782.4377
Fax 866-579-6411
by appointment only
Email Email
DALLAS OFFICE
320 Decker Drive ,
Suite 100
Dallas, Texas 75062

Phone 214.329.9837
Fax 866-579-6411
by appointment only
Email Email

 

 

 

 

Florida

TAMPA OFFICE
2202 N West Shore Blvd,
Ste 200
Tampa, FL 33607

Phone 813.227.4965
Fax 866-579-6411
by appointment only
Email Email
JACKSONVILLE OFFICE
841 Prudential Drive,
12th Floor
Jacksonville, FL 32207

Phone 904.380.6922
Fax 866-579-6411
by appointment only
Email Email
ORLANDO OFFICE
618 East South Street
Ste 500
Orlando, FL 32801

Phone 407.241.2380
Fax866-579-6411
by appointment only
Email Email
MIAMI OFFICE
1111 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL
33131

Phone 305.913.3725
Fax 866-579-6411
by appointment only
Email Email

 

 

Arizona

PHOENIX OFFICE
2375 East Camelback Road
Suite 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Phone 602.308.0300
Fax 866-579-6411
by appointment only
Email Email