Texas Commercial Law Firm

5. Assessment of damages. In assessing damages against a debt collector, the court will consider the frequency and persistence of noncompliance of the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional. 15 U.S.C.A. §1692k(b). In the case of a class action, the court will also consider the resources of the debt collector and the number of persons adversely affected. Id. It was the intent of Congress that in an aggravated case of persistent and illegal practices, the full $1,000 would be awarded while in other cases the court has discretion to award any amount less than that or nothing at all in addition to actual damages. Harvey v. United Adjusters, 509 F.Supp. 1218 (D.C.Or. 1981). However, the award of statutory damages does not require proof of actual damages. Woolfolk v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 783 F.Supp. 724 (D.Conn. 1990). The following cases are illustrative of criteria for assessment of damages against debt collectors.

In Crossley V. Lieberman, 868 F.2nd 566 (3rd Cir. 1989) an attorney sent a letter to a 68-year-old widow which falsely implied that foreclosure on her home was imminent for failure to pay a $297.00 installment. The Court found the attorney's conduct to be egregious and that it supported imposition of the statutory maximum of $1,000.00 in additional damages. The maximum statutory damages of $1,000.00 were also held to be warranted where an attorney was found to have violated the FDCPA in several respects and continued to use an offending demand letter even after the impropriety was brought to his attention by the debtor. Cacace V. Lucas, 775 F.Supp 502 (D.CONN.1990). The attorney's letter grossly overstated the amount owed, misrepresented consequences of the start of litigation and misrepresented the intention to file suit.

Next Page>>> |Previous Page>>>