Suit Allowed Over Firm's Role in Debt Collection

The FDCPA allows for provisions to protect the “least sophisticated consumer.”  For today, that least sophisticated consumer is plaintiff Arthur Miller, who is suing Upton Cohen & Slamowitz in Woodbury, N.Y., because they collected $1,200 from him on an overdue Lord & Taylor account.

Once upon a time, Miller owed $1,676.  Upton Cohen & Slamowitz sent a letter to Miller, claiming that they represented Lord & Taylor, and seeking payment on the past-due debt.  After UC&S filed a collection action against Miller, Miller paid $1,200.  This was back in 2000.  Everything seemed fine and done.

However, in 2001, Miller filed a lawsuit against Upton Cohen & Slamowitz, claiming that he as the “least sophisticated consumer” mentioned in the FDCPA, and that he was unfairly duped by the letter.  Had he been a little more sophisticated (for starters, not shopping at Lord & Taylor, say), his argument seemed to suggest, he never would have been fooled into paying his over-due bill.

Miller’s suit claimed that Upton Cohen and Slamowitz were not “meaningfully involved” in the suit – and that they weren’t actually in a position to be the ones collecting on Miller’s overdue account.

Eastern District of New York Judge Raymond Dearie has since ruled in favor of Miller, suggesting that Upton Cohen & Slamowitz had not completed a thorough review of Miller’s file.

"Neither the facts about defendant’s familiarity with its client, nor those about the procedure it followed prior to sending the July 18, 2000, debt collection letter to plaintiff, preclude the possibility that a reasonable jury could find that it failed to satisfy [the FDCPA's] requirement for meaningful attorney involvement," Judge Dearie wrote in Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 01 Civ. 1126.  Wolpoff & Abramson joined Upton Cohen & Slamowitz as well as the National Attorney Network as defendents in Miller’s case.  However, Wolpoff & Abramson reached an undisclosed agreement with the defendant.

Judge Dearie is, in essence, docking Upton Cohen & Slamowitz for taking Lord & Taylor’s word that they were owed the $1,676 and not doing any due diligence of their own.

There is no word, yet, on when the suit against Upton Cohen & Slamowitz will proceed.