Summary
In Kojetin, the communication at issue stated that the consumer was obligated to pay a collection agency's full fee-15% of the principal due-despite the underlying agreement between the consumer and the loan issuer permitting recovery only of the actual costs associated with collection.
Summary of this case from Kowouto v. Jellum Law, P.A.Opinion
No. 99-3151.
Submitted: May 8, 2000.
Filed: May 18, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Richard L. Pemberton, Jr., of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Also appearing on the brief was James Roegge.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Richard J. Rubin of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Also appearing on the brief was Eric L. Crandall.
Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
C U Recovery, Inc. (CUR) appeals the district court's adverse judgment in Deloris Kojetin's action to recover damages for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). After Kojetin signed a promissory note from a credit union for her son's car loan, the credit union referred the note to CUR for recovery after the loan went into default. Kojetin brought this action against CUR because its validation notice misrepresented the amount of the debt after CUR added fifteen percent of the principal balance to Kojetin's obligation. The district court concluded that CUR's notice violated the Act by adding the collection fee based on a percentage rather than on actual costs when Kojetin's agreement with the credit union provided she was liable only for actual costs. Having considered the record, the parties' submissions, and the relevant Minnesota law, see Campbell v. Worman, 60 N.W. 668 (Minn. 1894), we are satisfied the district court committed no error of law and judgment was correctly granted for the reasons stated in the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Contrary to CUR's view, we agree with the district court's conclusion that CUR violated the FDCPA when it charged Kojetin a collection fee based on a percentage of the principal balance that remained due rather than the actual cost of the collection. We thus affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.