THE CASE OF THE OVERZEALOUS DEBT COLLECTO

Greyson bought a boat from Arc Marine for the sum of $50,000. At purchase, Greyson paid $10,000 in cash and gave Arc a note for the balance, which was payable in sixty monthly installments.

After making several payments, Greyson had financial problems and fell behind in making payments. Arc's attorneys began calling Greyson every day at his place of work and at night at his home. The calls continued despite Greyson's demand that they cease. When they did not, Greyson brought an action against Arc pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Trial

There was testimony at trial about the number of times that the law firm's employee called Greyson and that both Greyson and his employer were very upset. Greyson's attorneys questioned partners of the law firm regarding how many such suits they handled and tested normal collection practices. A lawyer for Arc testified that it was very difficult to contact Greyson except during the daytime at work or in the evening at home.

The Arguments at Trial

Arc's attorneys argued that the suit should be dismissed because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not include attorneys under the category of debt collectors, and therefore, the act did not apply to the facts of this case. Greyson's attorneys argued that a law firm that did extensive collection work should be considered a debt collector under the act. They also argued that when a collector misused the collection process in an unreasonable way, the act should apply regardless of the status of the collector.

Questions for Discussion

1. Who do you believe has the stronger argument, Greyson or Arc? Why?

2. If you were the judge hearing this case, how would you decide? Why?

3. Based on your reading of the text and ordinary common sense, do you believe that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act should apply to all attorneys or just to those attorneys who specialize in collection work?