Consumer Protection — FDCPA

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Consumer Protection — FDCPA

Municipal fines are not debts subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

“Apparently the question whether fines are ‘debts’ under the FDCPA has never arisen in a court of appeals (at least not in a precedential decision). Yet that issue has come up frequently in the district courts, which have concluded uniformly that a fine does not stem from a consensual transaction and thus is not a debt under the FDCPA. See Reid v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc., Nos. 10-cv-204-JPG-DGW & 10-cv-269-JPG, 2010 WL 5289108, at *4-5 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2010) (concluding that fines for traffic violations are not debts under FDCPA); Mills v. City of Springfield, Mo., No. 2:10-CV-04036-NKL, 2010 WL 3526208, at *15-16 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 3, 2010) (same); Durso v. Summer Brook Preserve Homeowners Ass’n, 641 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1264-65 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (concluding that fines assessed against homeowner by homeowners association did not create debts under FDCPA); Shannon v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., No. 08-594(DSD/SRN), 2008 WL 2277814, at *1 (D. Minn. May 30, 2008) (holding that fines levied by county for parking violation and failure to register vehicle did not meet criteria for FDCPA debts); Williams v. Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc., No. 3:06-cv-400, 2008 WL 782540, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2008) (holding that unpaid traffic fine is not debt under FDCPA), aff’d on other grounds, 582 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2009); Yon v. Alliance One Receivables Mgmt., Inc., No. 07-61362-Civ, 2007 WL 4287628, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2007) (same); Harper v. Collection Bureau of Walla Walla, Inc., No. C06-1605-JCC, 2007 WL 4287293, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2007) (same); Graham v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., No. 0:06-cv-2708-JNE/JJG, 2006 WL 2911780, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 10, 2006) (concluding that unpaid parking tickets do not qualify as debts under FDCPA); Riebe v. Juergensmeyer & Assocs., 979 F. Supp. 1218, 1221-22 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (concluding that unpaid fine imposed for overdue library book is not debt under FDCPA). We agree with these decisions and, as did the district court, conclude that the municipal fines levied against Gulley cannot reasonably be understood as “debts” arising from consensual consumer transactions for goods and services. Accordingly, the allegations in his amended complaint state no claim under the FDCPA and were properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).”

Affirmed.

11-2104 Gulley v. Markoff & Krasny

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Gettleman, J., Per Curiam.