TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Drumright v. Collection Recovery, Inc.

Dale Kerby DRUMRIGHT v. COLLECTION RECOVERY, INC.

Drumright v. Collection Recovery, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 1 (M.D. Tenn. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Federal District Courts
Decided
January 18, 1980
Docket
No. 79-3618
Judges
Wiseman
Citations
500 F. Supp. 11980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14937

Opinion — Wiseman

MEMORANDUM WISEMAN, District Judge.

This action for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Collection Recovery, Inc. Defendant asserts the one-year statute of limitations provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The complaint alleges violation of three portions of the Act in that (1) defendant did not communicate the required information within five days of the initial communication; (2) the defendant misrepresented its right to initiate suit pri- or to the expiration of the thirty-day validation period (such misrepresentation allegedly violating section 1692c of the Act); and (3) the suit was initiated by the defendant prior to the expiration of the thirty-day validation period.

Initial communication by the defendant to the plaintiff occurred on November 25, 1978, and did not contain the information required by section g of the Act. No follow up communication was made within five days after such initial communication. Defendant filed suit against plaintiff on December 1, 1978, in the name of the creditor. The suit in this Court was filed on November 29, 1979.

Insofar as the suit is based upon a false or misleading representation made in the initial communication of November 25, 1978, as a basis for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, the motion is well taken. The suit in this case was filed four days beyond the one-year limitation.

The alleged violation of section g is not barred, and the suit is timely. A violation of section g would not ripen until five days after the initial communication of November 25, 1978. The collection agency defendant had through November 30, 1978, in which to provide the required information *2 of section g. The plaintiff’s suit for such a violation would not ripen until December 1, 1978, and plaintiff would have through November 30, 1979, to file such a suit. Suit having been filed on November 29, 1979, the motion to dismiss is not well taken and is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1992: 11995: 119922026peak 1992 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Phillip E. Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc.980 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1992)
  2. Blakemore v. Pekay895 F. Supp. 972 (N.D. Ill. 1995)

Most recent

  1. Blakemore v. Pekay895 F. Supp. 972 (N.D. Ill. 1995)
  2. Phillip E. Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc.980 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list