RIVERA ALMODOVAR v. P & V COLLECTION SERVICES INC

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE:
MIGUEL ANGEL RIVERA ALMODOVAR
MARILEN DE LOS ANGELES MARTINEZ
GARCIA
CASE NO. 09-07002 BKT
CHAPTER 13
Debtor(s) 	ADVERSARY NO. 09-00251
MIGUEL ANGEL RIVERA ALMODOVAR
Plaintiff
P & V COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.,
JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROE, A
CORPORATION, B CORPORATION, C
CORPORATION, X INSURANCE, Y
INSURANCE, & Z INSURANCE
FILED & ENTERED ON 03/24/2011
Defendant(s)
OPINION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon the issue of damages to be awarded to the Plaintiff
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692k (“FDCPA”).
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The present adversary proceeding alleges that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter in violation of the FDCPA. This Court already found the Defendant liable for violation of the
FDCPA, and held an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be
awarded to the Plaintiff, which the Court will determine herein.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The FDCPA awards damages in an amount equal to the sum of (1) actual damages; (2)
additional damages, up to $1,000; and (3) the costs of the action, together with a reasonable
Case:09-00251-BKT Doc#:47 Filed:03/24/11 Entered:03/24/11 09:16:09 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attorney’s fee as determined by the court. The purpose of the actual damages portion of the FDCPA
is to fairly compensate the plaintiff, not to punish or deter the defendant. Courts have interpreted
“actual damages” to include damages for emotional distress caused by the debt collector's statutory
violation. Maxwell v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. , 281 B.R. 101, 117-18 (Bankr.D.Mass.2002); Hart v.
GMAC Mortgage Corp., 246 B.R. 709, 730 (Bankr.D.Mass.2000); McGrady v. Nissan Motor
Acceptance Corp., 40 F.Supp.2d 1323, 1338-39 (M.D.Ala.1998); Teng v. Metro. Retail Recovery,
Inc., 851 F.Supp. 61, 68-69 (E.D.N.Y.1994); Donahue v. NFS, Inc., 781 F.Supp. 188, 193
(W.D.N.Y.1991); Carrigan v.Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 502 F.Supp. 468, 470 (N.D.Ga.1980).
In Sweetland v. Stevens & James, Inc., 563 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.Me.2008), the Court
determined that an award of $2,500 was warranted for debt collector's violation of the FDCPA. The
defendant in Sweetland used a loud and threatening tone of voice, abusive language, and threatened
to send a private investigator to debtor's home to see what assets she had, causing debtor to become
distressed. However, the collector's conduct was limited to two direct phone calls to debtor within a
brief period and one later phone message to debtor's attorney. The debtor fully recovered from any
emotional trauma within a couple of months, and incurred no out of pocket expenses or lost time
from work. Similarly, the testimony of the Plaintiff in the present proceeding indicated that he and
his family incurred emotional distress as a result of the letter, but he incurred no permanent damages,
out of pocket expenses, or lost time from work as a result of the collection letter. 	Also,
notwithstanding the Debtor’s testimony that he feared he and his family would loose their property,
even though he already had bankruptcy counsel, he did not file bankruptcy for another 10 weeks.
Considering the facts in the Sweetland case, and the Debtor’s testimony at the hearing, this Court
Case:09-00251-BKT Doc#:47 Filed:03/24/11 Entered:03/24/11 09:16:09 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
finds the amount of actual damages incurred to be $1,000.
The FDCPA also allows an award of “additional damages” for an action by an individual up
to $1,000. In determining an “additional damages” award under § 1692k(a)(2)(A), the law directs
the court to consider “the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the
nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional.” 15
U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(1). While the Defendant in the present proceeding only sent one letter to the
Plaintiff, the Defendant admitted that it did not even attempt to draft the letter in compliance with the
FDCPA, and that the act of sending the letter was intentional. 	As a result of the Defendant’s
violation of the FDCPA, this Court also grants the Plaintiff $1,000 in “additional damages” as
allowed by the statute.
The Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in his complaint. However, the court in Sweetland
stated that it is doubtful, in view of the absence of a punitive damages provision in the statute and the
presence of an additional statutory award not to exceed $1,000, that punitive damages are available
under the FDCPA in any event. Sweetland v. Stevens & James, Inc. 563 F.Supp.2d at 303; Aronson
v. Creditrust Corp., 7 F.Supp.2d 589, 594 (W.D.Pa.1998). In Aronson, the Court noted that the
damages portion of the statute contains no reference to punitive damages, and the Court determined
from this that "[b]ased upon the plain language of the statute, and in the absence of any legislative
history to the contrary, [the court finds] that punitive damages are not recoverable under the FDCPA
[...]." Id. Accordingly, this Court does not award any punitive damages to the Plaintiff.
An award of attorneys’ fees to successful plaintiffs under the FDCPA is obligatory. Dechert
v. Cadle Co., 441 F.3d 474, 475 (7th Cir. 2006); Zagorski v. Midwest Billing Serv., Inc., 128 F.3d
Case:09-00251-BKT Doc#:47 Filed:03/24/11 Entered:03/24/11 09:16:09 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1164, 1166 (7th Cir. 1997); Emanuel v. Am. Credit Exch., 870 F.2d 805, 809 (2d Cir. 1989). See
also, de Jesús v. Banco Popular de P.R., 918 F.2d 232, 233-34 (1st Cir. 1990) (concluding that an
award of attorney's fees is mandatory under an identical provision contained in the Truth in Lending
Act). Successful plaintiffs are those who have obtained an award of statutory or actual damages.
Since the Court grants the Plaintiff in the present proceeding statutory and actual damages, he is also
entitled to reasonable attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).
Having found that the Plaintiff incurred actual damages of $1,000 and statutory damages of
$1,000, this court grants the Plaintiff a total of $2,000 in damages. The Plaintiff’s attorney is hereby
ordered to submit a bill detailing the fees and costs incurred in litigating this action within twenty
(20) days.
SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 24 day of March, 2011.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:09-00251-BKT Doc#:47 Filed:03/24/11 Entered:03/24/11 09:16:09 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 4