Charles

Charles v. Lundgren & Associates, P.C.

Good Law
119 F.3d 739·97 Daily Journal DAR 8750·1997 WL 370884·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16786·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5379
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 8, 1997No. 96-15995California1,369 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Trott, J.

Overview

This case presents an issue of first impression in this circuit: whether a third-party debt collector’s efforts to collect a dishonored check are governed by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 -1692o. The district court ruled that the FDCPA does not apply to efforts to collect a dishonored check, because a dishonored check is not a “debt” under the FDCPA.

The only federal court of appeals that has considered this question is the Seventh Circuit. In a well-reasoned and persuasive opinion, that court recently held that a dishonored check is a “debt” under the FDCPA. Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C., 111 F.3d 1322 (7th Cir.1997). We agree with its conclusion that, because “an offer or extension of credit is not required for a payment obligation to constitute a ‘debt’ under the FDCPA,” id. at 1326 , the FDCPA governs the collection of dishonored checks. We therefore reverse.

*741 Background

Sharolyn Charles (“Plaintiff’) brought suit against Check Rite Ltd., Alvin R. Lundgren, and Lundgren & Associates (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants’ actions in attempting to collect a dishonored…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.