N.D. Illinois: Debt Itemization Does Not Imply Interest May Accrue

As the interest disclosure saga unfolds, the Northern District of Illinois continues to set the path for reasonable decisions on the issue. The Miller safe harbor language came from the Seventh Circuit and was eventually adopted by the Second Circuit in Avila. These two cases were the roots of a wide-spread filing spree by plaintiffs’ counsel on claims that distorted these two decisions by alleging that a failure to include a disclosure that interest is not accruing on the account somehow violates the FDCPA. 

In certain jurisdictions, such as New York, debt collectors must itemize the balance of a debt to show the consumer what portion is attributed to interest, fees, and other charges. Clinging to what they hoped to be their next cash cow, plaintiffs’ attorneys began filing claims that alleged including such a disclosure would lead a least sophisticated consumer to believe that interest could accrue on the account even if the itemization line indicates the number is zero.  

On March 7, 2018, Judge Sara Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois, a notoriously unfriendly jurisdiction for debt collectors, shut down this argument by granting Client Services’ motion to dismiss the complaint in Delgado v. Client Services Inc., No. 17-CV-4364, 2018 WL 1193741 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2018). 

View this content by subscribing

Please register to unlock this content

I already have an account. Log in