## Facts

- Darlene Jenkins borrowed money from Gainer Bank to purchase a car and later defaulted.
- The bank retained George W. Heintz and his law firm to sue Jenkins in state court to recover the unpaid balance.
- During settlement discussions in the state-court case, Heintz sent Jenkins a letter stating an amount allegedly owed, including $4,173 for insurance the bank bought after Jenkins failed to maintain insurance as required.
- Jenkins filed a federal suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging the letter sought an amount not authorized by the debt agreement and misstated the amount or legal status of the debt under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692f(1) and 1692e(2)(A).
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, reasoning the FDCPA does not apply to lawyers engaged in litigation.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt-collection litigation can qualify as “debt collectors.”
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the FDCPA applies to attorneys whose consumer debt-collection work occurs through litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney who regularly pursues consumer debt collection through lawsuits is a “debt collector” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
2. Whether the FDCPA applies to litigation-related debt-collection conduct, including settlement communications sent during a pending collection lawsuit.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Seventh Circuit (Breyer, J.).
- The Court held that the FDCPA applies to lawyers who regularly engage in consumer debt-collection litigation.
- An attorney who regularly attempts to obtain payment of consumer debts through legal proceedings falls within the statutory definition of “debt collector.”
- The Court rejected arguments for an implied litigation-only exemption based on asserted anomalies, a post-enactment legislative statement, and nonbinding FTC staff commentary.

## Legal Principles

- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), a “debt collector” includes any person who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, consumer debts owed or asserted to be owed to another.
- A lawyer who regularly seeks payment through legal proceedings is attempting to collect debts “indirectly” and can be covered by the FDCPA.
- Congress’s 1986 repeal of the FDCPA’s prior attorney exemption, without adding a narrower litigation-related exemption, supports applying the Act to attorneys’ litigation-based collection efforts.
- Potential awkwardness in applying certain FDCPA provisions to litigation activity does not justify a court-created categorical exemption when the statutory text is clear.
- Post-enactment statements by individual legislators and nonbinding agency staff commentary cannot override the statute’s language and Congress’s repeal of the attorney exemption.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that attorneys and law firms that regularly pursue consumer debt collection through litigation are “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, so the Act’s restrictions may apply to litigation-related collection conduct, including settlement letters sent in the course of a collection lawsuit.


Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995)