Heintz v. Jenkins - 514 U.S. 291, 115 S. Ct. 1489 (1995)

Rule:

The term "debt collector" in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1692-1692o, applies to a lawyer who "regularly," through litigation, tries to collect consumer debts.

Facts:

Petitioner Heintz was a lawyer representing a bank that sued respondent Jenkins to recover the balance due on her defaulted car loan. After a letter from Heintz listed the amount Jenkins owed as including the cost of insurance bought by the bank when she reneged on her promise to insure the car, Jenkins brought the present suit against Heintz and his law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which forbade "debt collector[s]" to make false or misleading representations and to engage in various abusive and unfair practices. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Act did not apply to lawyers engaging in litigation. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed, holding that the Act applied to litigating lawyers. Petitioner challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Did the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act apply to litigating lawyers? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applied to an attorney who regularly engaged in consumer debt collection activities through litigation. According to the Court, lawyers who regularly engaged in attempts to collect debts owed to another were debt collectors under the definition of “debt collector” provided in the Act. The Court further noted that although an earlier version of the definition expressly excluded "any attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client," Congress repealed this exemption in 1986 without creating a narrower, litigation-related, exemption to fill the void.