A debtor purchased a car and defaulted on her payments shortly thereafter. At that point, the creditor contacted a vendor about repossessing the vehicle. The first vendor was unable to repossess the car, so the creditor reassigned the Order of Repossession to a different collector. That collector was able to repossess the vehicle nearly a year after default. However, while the collector was at the debtor’s home, she came outside, calmly asked the collector to stop, and made it clear she disagreed with the repossession. Nonetheless, the car was ultimately towed away that day. The debtor then sued the creditor, claiming that it had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by repossessing the car after she objected. The creditor moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not violate the FDCPA. To resolve the dispute, the court had to determine (1) whether a breach of peace had occurred during the repossession; and (2) whether the collector had control over the vehicle when the debtor had objected to the repossession.
In Gonzalez v. VJ Wood Recovery, LLC, No 5:23-cv-01599-JMG, 2024 WL 1321074, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54629 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2024) (opinion not yet released for publication), the court denied the creditor’s motion for summary judgment, clarified the law, and determined there was an issue of fact that needed to be determined by a jury. First, the court explained that the debtor’s claims “hinge on a jury deciding that a breach of the peace occurred.” If the evidence showed that the collector had control over the vehicle before the debtor made her protest, the collector (and creditor) would not be found to have violated the FDCPA. On the other hand, if the collector only took control of the vehicle after the debtor had made her protest, a breach of the peace would have occurred, and there would have been a violation of FDCPA. However, the court found that the timing of the protest was contested by the parties, making it unable to grant summary judgment. The court thus denied the motion, holding that a jury would need to determine when the protest was made in relation to the repossession.
By Maycee Redfearn [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott [email protected]
Edited By Ashley Boyce [email protected]