United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge.
Cherrone George brings the instant suit against Defendant
Wright, Lerch & Litow, LLP Attorneys at Law
(“Wright”) under the Federal Debt Collection
Practice Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692,
et. seq. She argues that she received a dunning letter from
Wright that is missing the total amount due which she claims
is a violation of the FDCPA. [Filing No. 1.] Ms. George filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 49], and Wright
filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 56].
After a conference call with the presiding Magistrate Judge
on November 15, 2016, the parties stipulated that the Court
will determine all issues of fact and law made in connection
with their pending motions for summary judgment and will
issue findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final
judgment pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. [Filing No. 67.] The
parties indicated that they submitted all pertinent legal
arguments and evidence in their summary judgment briefing.
[Filing No. 67.] Because the Court is the fact finder, it is
not constrained to the standard for summary judgment and
accordingly issues its findings of fact and conclusions of
April 15, 1995, Ms. George entered into a retail installment
contract for “personal, family, or household purposes,
” which was later assigned to Credit Acceptance
Corporation (“Credit Acceptance”). [Filing No.
50-1 at 1; Filing No. 55-3 at 1.] Ms. George was unable to
make her payments and Credit Acceptance filed a claim against
her in small claims court. [Filing No. 55-3 at 1.] After she
failed to appear or otherwise respond to the complaint,
Credit Acceptance obtained a judgment against Ms. George on
February 22, 1996 in the amount of $4, 434.53 plus costs.
[Filing No. 55-3 at 2.] Post-judgment interest has accrued on
the outstanding judgment since that date. [Filing No. 55-3 at
2.] ¶ 2000, Credit Acceptance retained Wright to collect
the outstanding debt from Ms. George. [Filing No. 55-3 at 2.]
Wright attempted to contact Ms. George on several occasions
regarding the debt. [Filing No. 55-3 at 2.] A representative
from Wright met with Ms. George in person at two proceedings
supplemental in 2010 and 2011. [Filing No. 55-3 at 2.] On
December 3, 2014, Ms. George received a letter from Wright,
Our client: Credit Acceptance Corporation
Original Account Number:___3999
Wright, Lerch & Litow File No.: 7546
Cherrone M. George-Herring:
client has given us the authority to offer a settlement to
pay off the above account. Our client will settle this matter
for 75% of the balance. This offer expires 30 days from
issuance of this letter.
now to take advantage of this opportunity at 260-423-6655.
AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION WE OBTAIN
WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A
DEBT COLLECTOR AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN FEDERAL LAW.
letter does not advise Ms. George as to the precise amount of
the settlement demand. However, the debt in question accrued
interest on a daily basis, so seventy-five percent of the
balance would vary depending upon when or if Ms. George