In a recent case, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania looked into the issue where a collection lawsuit against a consumer should be filed. In Dixon v. J. Scott Watson, P.C., No. 17-cv-5236 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2018), the court denied reconsideration of its decision that filing a collection lawsuit in Pennsylvania when it is neither the location of plaintiff’s residence nor where plaintiff was located when he signed the agreement violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Factual and Procedural Background

Drexel University accepted plaintiff as a student, sending the offer of admission to plaintiff’s residence in Virginia. To complete the admissions process, Plaintiff logged onto the university’s online system and electronically agreed to the school’s Tuition Repayment Agreement. The agreement states, “I understand that once I am registered for course(s) and/or participating in the Cooperative Education Program at Drexel University, I become solely responsible for payment of the resulting tuition, fees, and any other balances.” The online system marked plaintiff’s location at the time of signature as Virginia. Plaintiff’s future log ons into the online system were from Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff signed up for classes in Pennsylvania, but eventually withdrew from the university with an unpaid tuition bill. The university filed a breach of contract action against plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, where plaintiff did not reside at the time of filing. Plaintiff filed a motion objecting to the forum in which the suit was filed (also known as “forum non conveniens”). The court denied this motion without providing reasoning for its decision.

The case proceeded to trial, where the court found that plaintiff was bound by the Tuition Repayment Agreement, However,the court made no reference as to where the agreement was signed.

After some other procedural steps in the state court action, plaintiff filed a FDCPA case against J. Scott Watson, P.C. (“JSW”), Drexel’s debt collector, in federal court for allegedly failing to comply with 1692i by filing the collection action in the wrong state. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. JSW moved for the court to reconsider its ruling.

The Decision

The court found that its decision granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should stand. In its decision, the court primarily focused on where the contract was signed rather the substance of the contract.

Among other things, JSW argued that the issue of forum non conveniens was previously litigated in the underlying state court action and thus was not allowed to be re-litigated. In reviewing this argument, the court looked at the evidence evaluated by the state court. Since the state court did not provide a reason for its denial of the forum non conveniens motion, it was of little help. However, the court noted that at trial, the only issue decided by the court was that plaintiff signed the agreement, not where plaintiff signed the agreement. Nor was there any indication that the state court took section 1692i of the FDCPA into consideration when making its decision. Due to this, the court found that this specific issue has not previously been litigated.

As to the proper forum for filing a collection suit, the court turned to the text of the FDCPA. Section 1692i states that a debt collector shall bring an action “only in a judicial district or similar legal entity… in which such customer signed the contract sued upon, or in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.” Since plaintiff neither resided in nor signed the contract while he was in Pennsylvania, the court found that its grant of summary judgment to plaintiff should stand.

insideARM Perspective

One interesting thing here is the language of the Tuition Repayment Agreement itself. The agreement states, “I understand that once I am registered for course(s) and/or participating in the Cooperative Education Program at Drexel University, I become solely responsible for payment of the resulting tuition, fees, and any other balances.” (Emphasis added.). This language seems to indicate that the obligation to repay tuition does not occur until you sign up for classes, which plaintiff here did in Pennsylvalnia. The court did not take this into consideration even though it was the language that the plaintiff agreed to.

MANITOWOC, Wis. — For the 10th consecutive year, Americollect has received the honor of being listed on the Inc. 5000 2018 Fastest Growing Private Companies in America.

Inc. magazine has named the fastest-growing companies in America with the annual Inc. 5000 list – the most prestigious honor for private businesses. Started in 1982, this esteemed list has become the hallmark of entrepreneurial success. The Inc. 5000 is ranked according to percentage revenue growth over a three-year period.

“I’m very proud that our continued growth earned us a place on the Inc. 5000 list for the 10th consecutive year,” stated Kenlyn T. Gretz, CEO of Americollect. “It’s a testament to the hard work of our dedicated teammates and our culture of being Ridiculously Nice. Our growth is a direct result of our Ridiculously Nice approach of showing empathy to help explain away the complexity of healthcare bills to patients,” said Gretz.

There are only 20 other companies in the U.S. that made the list 10 years in a row and Americollect is the only collection agency to obtain this feat.

About Americollect

Americollect partners with healthcare systems nationwide operating two divisions: one serving as a hospital’s customer service team, and the other as a healthcare collection agency.  They provide a better patient experience by being Ridiculously Nice. 

Americollect’s continuous growth often provides new career opportunities.  Current openings include Call Center Director, Software Developer, and Senior Systems Administrator. If you would like to learn more about Americollect, their growth, or career opportunities, please visit www.americollect.com.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — DCM Services (DCMS), the industry leader in estate and specialty account recovery solutions, celebrates 20 years as an organization in 2018.

Founded in 1998 as Balogh Becker, LTD., DCMS has become the leading estate recovery solutions provider for financial services, healthcare and telecom organizations. DCMS provides unmatched results to its customers by developing technologies that focus on compliance, performance and the customer experience.  

“Throughout its evolution, DCM Services has created a strong reputation for building superior proprietary technologies, consulting closely with its clients, and remaining committed to our cultural values that are reflected throughout the organization,” said Tim Bauer, chief executive officer. “We have been on an incredible journey as an organization over these last 20 years. We have achieved this milestone through the creativity, hard work, and innovation of our team members as well as the partnerships that we have been able to form with our strong customer base.”

DCMS has grown significantly in the last 20 years, servicing more than 200 clients across multiple markets by creating custom-designed data and contact management solutions for their specialty accounts.

Additionally, DCMS works with 9 of the top 12 financial institutions and 5 of the top 10 healthcare systems in the United States, cementing its place as the leader in this space.  

About DCM Services

Minneapolis-based DCM Services is the industry leader in estate and specialty account resolution services, maximizing the value of client portfolios across financial services, healthcare, retail, and telecom industries through innovation and performance. Its recovery solutions offer a full range of services from proprietary web-based solutions to full outsourcing, maintaining an unmatched spectrum of innovative solutions that increase recoveries, protect brand value, and enhance survivor relationships – with respect and sensitivity. For more information on all DCM Services’ offerings, visit www.dcmservices.com.

STERLING, Ill. — VeriFacts Inc. (VFI), a small family owned data and asset location service, announced plans to ramp up due diligence facilitation while reducing labor for many Department of Education (ED) clients. In this two-part process, VFI supports the Administrative Wage Garnishment (AWG) process with verified places of employment while also streamlining voluntary payment attempts with unverified local employer phone numbers.

In the 7Point program, the unverified phone numbers provide an avenue for Private Collection Agencies (PCAs) to arrange payment options while also aiding in the required seven attempts to contact the consumer prior to AWG. The phone number data eliminates the need for manual research which is a costly part of the process.

Supporting the AWG efforts, PCAs rely on VeriFacts’ 30+ years of skip tracing experience.  PCAs can rest assured that all work performed on the accounts is done in the United States with zero offshoring. Over the years many PCAs have implemented the Payroll Promise program for fulltime places of employment and have come to know VeriFacts for its quality and reliable information. As the industry leader, VFI prides itself on unparalleled integrity, compliance, and customer service.

Verified employment information alongside 7Point eliminates a great deal of labor invested from PCAs as well as providing a competitive edge with quality that simply can’t be beat. These programs can be used together, or as a standalone addition to current efforts. Utilizing these programs, or any VFI program, has never been easier. Users can simply drag and drop their files to the secure site, where the results are also returned.  

To learn more about VeriFacts and the programs available to support collection efforts, please email sales@verifactsinc.com or call 800-542-7434.

In debt collection, the consumer’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) validation rights, as spelled out in section 1692g, are all but sacred. Whether a debt collector’s communications overshadow the consumer’s 30 day window to dispute the validity of a debt remains a hot button issue. In Arellano v. Clark County Collection Service, LLC and Borg Law Group, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01424 (D. Nev. Aug. 28, 2018), the District of Nevada recently reviewed whether information in a court summons can overshadow the 1692g validation rights. However, the decision revolved around whether a summons in a court proceeding constitutes a communication.

[article_ad]

Factual and Procedural Background

Clark County Collection Service, LLC (CCCS), through its attorneys at Borg Law Group, LLC, sued plaintiff in state court to collect on a debt. While the complaint told plaintiff that she had 30 days from receipt to dispute the validity of the debt, she also received a summons for the matter that stated she had 20 days to answer CCCS’s complaint.

Plaintiff sued CCCS and Borg Law Group alleging that the 20 day answer requirement in the summons overshadows her 1692g validation rights. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the matter.

The Decision

The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the summons does not overshadow plaintiff’s validation rights.

In making its decision, the court first determined whether or not the summons falls into the FDCPA’s definition of “communication.” The court pointed to precedent that states a formal pleading in a civil action is not a communication per the FDCPA. While both parties agreed that the complaint was not a communication, the question came down to whether the summons should receive the same treatment. Defendants argued that the summons is not a communication because it makes no reference to the debt. The court agreed with defendants. Since the summons was not an actionable communication, the court found no FDCPA violation.

insideARM Perspective

Whether something falls into the FDCPA’s definition of a “communication” is a question often raised in the ARM industry, especially as modern technology changes the way debt collectors communicate with consumers. However, sometimes clarity is still needed at the basic level. In the context of litigation, deadlines to answer a complaint are determined by the jurisdiction’s rules of civil procedure. If an answer deadline did overshadow the consumer’s 1692g rights, then debt collection law firms would be left in a tough situation. Luckily, that doesn’t appear to be the case, at least not in Nevada.

Roseville, Minn. — Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC is proud to announce two new executive team members: Mr. Thomas Clement as Chief Sales Officer and Mr. Jon Avery as Vice President of Sales and Compliance. Tom will oversee new business development for Frontline’s services and Jon will take over management of compliance and training as well as new business development initiatives.

“We are thrilled and fortunate to welcome Tom and Jon to the Frontline team” said Co-founder and Managing Member Dan Winkler. “Their dedication to the ARM industry, positive reputations and long-established relationships are an ideal fit to Frontline’s growth plans to expand services beyond our existing client base”.

Prior to Frontline, Mr. Clement held numerous leadership roles in his twenty-seven year ARM industry career. Most recently he served as Executive Vice President of Business Development positioning his prior organization for diversification. 

“I have had the pleasure of working with Frontline and timing was right for us to join forces. Dan and his team put a tremendous high value on establishing long-term relationships. This is how I have done business over the course of my career and I look forward to connecting with all my colleagues to get them up to speed on Frontline, the great culture that exists and the services we offer. – Tom Clement

Prior to Frontline, Mr. Avery provided operational oversight and strategic account management in his twenty years with Teleperformance ARM, most recently as Sr. Vice President of Operations. He managed top tier clients and multiple call centers in the United States and abroad, overseeing all organizational impact including but not limited to client satisfaction, client performance, quality assurance, compliance, analytics, IT, and training and development.

“Frontline’s values and vision was a perfect fit for me. The company’s positive, purposeful, people first approach really sets it apart from the typical contact center. This along with the company’s determination to remain ahead of the curve when it comes to customer preferred contact channels made joining Frontline a very easy choice for me.  The Frontline future is bright and I’m excited to be a part of it”. – Jon Avery

About Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC 

Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC (FAST) (www.frontlineas.com) was founded in 2008 as a collection and contact center partner. Frontline has a subsidiary organization, CenterPoint Legal Solutions, LLC that offers specialty judgment, legal, skip trace and BPO services. As service organizations both are dedicated to helping clients and their customers by creating relationships, challenging and rewarding great employees, and continuously investing to provide best in class results. Their mission is to provide positive experiences, services and solutions improving the welfare of consumers, clients and employees.

In Scheffler v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A., No. 17-2141 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2018), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed what communications the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) permits after the consumer submits a cease communication request to the debt collector. Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit decided that neither a notice of garnishment with a cover letter nor a response to a consumer-initiated inquiry violate the FDCPA even if they occured after the cease communication request.

Factual and Procedural Background

Troy Scheffler (plaintiff-appellant), the plaintiff in the district court case and appellant before the Eight Circuit, was at one point a debt collector himself.

Gurstel Chargo, P.A. (Gurstel), a debt collection law firm, obtained a judgment against plaintiff-appellant for a debt he incurred. While attempting to collect on the judgment, Gurstel mailed a notice of garnishment to Financial One Credit Union and to plaintiff-appellant himself. Plaintiff-appellant’s copy included a cover letter that provided the mini-Miranda disclosure and a statement directing the consumer to contact Gurstel with any questions at its telephone number.

Plaintiff-appellant called the number on the letter and spoke with a representative at Gurstel. The conversation “quickly drifted” to the underlying debt and the plaintiff-appellant asked what he was going to do about the debt. In response to this inquiry, the representative “broached the possibility of settling the debt.” In response to this, plaintiff-appellant told the representative that he previously sent a cease letter to Gurstel and that the conversation violated that directive.

Plaintiff-appellant sued Gurstel in state court for violating the FDCPA by contacting him after he requested a cease in communication, specifically by sending the notice of garnishment and by discussing the option to settle the debt during the phone call. Gurstel removed the case to federal district court, which granted Gurstel’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff-appellant appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit.

The Decision

The Eight Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, finding that neither communication  violated the FDCPA.

The FDCPA carves out an exception to post-cease request communications in order to allow a debt collector “to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such a debt collector or creditor.” The court was not persuaded by plaintiff-appellant’s argument that the directive to call Gurstel and the inclusion of the mini-Miranda somehow made the letter violative. The court found nothing wrong with Gurstel including their telephone number on a notice of garnishment.

The court likewise found nothing wrong with Gurstel mentioning settlement as an option after plaintiff-appellant himself broached the subject of how to handle the debt. Plaintiff-appellant attempted to argue that he only contacted Gurstel on the topic of the garnishment, but the court found that the facts show otherwise since he was the one who asked what he was going to do about the debt. Agreeing with the Ninth-Circuit, the court found that “1692c(c) does not prevent a debt collector from responding to a debtor’s post-cease letter inquiry regarding a debt.”

The Eighth Circuit’s decision begins by highlighting the fact that plaintiff-appellant was previous a debt collector and “has litigated a number of FDCPA claims against other debt collectors.” Plaintiff-appellant unsuccessfully argued that the district court held his past role against him and did not apply the unsophisticated consumer standard to his case. However, the district court repeatedly pointed out that its reasoning stands even if the unsophisticated consumer standard is applied, regardless of plaintiff-appellant’s past profession.

insideARM Perspective

This case is an example of someone knowing just enough to be dangerous. Here, we have a former debt collector who previously filed a FDCPA cases against debt collectors. He likely knew the basics (like to send a cease communication letter) but not the details (that there are certain exceptions to a debt collector’s requirement to cease communication upon receiving the request). The end result is almost three years worth of litigation without an avenue for Gurstel to recover its defense fees even though it won at both the trial court and appellate level.

With that said, it is always nice to have a higher court lay down the tracks for what is and is not a permitted communication in the context of debt collection considering the sometimes-vague provisions of the FDCPA.

ROSEVILLE, Minn. — This year at the 2018 Debt Connection Symposium in Austin, TX, CenterPoint Legal Solutions (CenterPoint) is proudly sponsoring the Digital Recovery Network (DRN) poker tournament to benefit Naked Warrior Project. CenterPoint is excited to be participating in raising money for such a worthy cause while having fun with friends and colleagues from around the receivables management industry.

The Naked Warrior Project is a non-profit foundation created to honor fallen Navy SEALs and Special Operations warriors who have sacrificed their lives for our freedom. Their mission is to memorialize the fallen soldiers’ courageous sacrifice and provide support to their families. The Naked Warrior Project was founded by former Navy SEAL and security contractor John Owens and his family after his brother, also a SEAL, was killed in combat in January 2017.

“This is a cause that is near and dear to our hearts,” said Aaron Rose, President of CenterPoint Legal Solutions. “We look for ways to give back to our community and have a fondness for organizations that support our veterans.”

The poker tournament is being played on Thursday night, September 6th at the JW Marriot hotel in downtown Austin, Texas during the Debt Connection Symposium event. This Texas-Hold’em style tournament is a great opportunity for conference attendees to have some fun after a full day of educational sessions.

“We are really looking forward to participating in such a fun event with our clients and friends. We are so excited to be promoting such a worthy cause that we are passionate about helping,” said VP of Sales & Marketing, Kacey Rask. “Their commitment to the community is one of the many reasons I joined the CenterPoint Legal Solutions team.”

About CenterPoint Legal Solutions

CenterPoint Legal Solutions provides full-scale recovery solutions that include working with a qualified managed network of collection agencies and law firms, industry-leading compliance management systems, and data verification and support services.

CenterPoint strives for unmatched transparency and integrity to increase trust and create value for all stakeholders. This is done through comprehensive analysis, oversight, and hands-on management to enhance consumer experience, reduce risk, and safeguard the brand image of clients. Their mission is to provide positive experiences, services, and solutions, thus improving the welfare of consumers, clients and employees.

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the hardest one to see.

For weeks now the courts have been debating whether the 2003 and 2008 Predictive Dialer Rulings were set aside by ACA Int’l or just the 2015 TCPA Omnibus ruling. Indeed, the landscape is so fractured that TCPAland.com now has a separate menu feature dedicated to tracking these cases as they come out. 

[article_ad]

But what if the answer is that ACA Int’l didn’t set aside any specific FCC rulings at all, just the FCC’s approach to defining the functions of an ATDS in any and all of its earlier orders?  That is the Eureka! moment contained within the reasoning in Wash. v. Six Continents Hotels, Case No. 2:16-CV-03719-ODW-JEM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145639 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018). In Wash the Court ultimately denied a Defendant’s motion to dismiss a TCPA complaint alleging unlawful text messages, but not before obliterating all previous assumptions about how the ACA Int’l ruling interacts with earlier FCC rulings defining an ATDS.

Going step by step, the Court first determined–and contrary to recent rulings out of the Northern District of California— that the ACA Int’l determination is binding across the country. The analysis by the Court is compact and clear: “As an agency can make rulings that have nationwide effect, the finding of a court of appeals in reviewing an agency ruling also has nationwide precedential effect.” Wash at *6. Simple as that.

Next the Court considered what ACA Int’l actually reviewed. After noting that petitioners sought review of previous FCC orders–not just the 2015 Omnibus Order–the Court found that ACA Int’l “reaches previous orders filed by the FCC, and not just the 2015 Order immediately at issue.” Wash at *6. As did Sessions, Pinkus and Keyes before it, the Wash court noted that ACA Int’l specifically rejected the FCC’s contention that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to review the FCC’s 2003 and 2008 Predictive Dialer Rulings. 

In the Wash court’s view, ACA Int’l set out to answer two questions regrading the TCPA’s definition of an ATDS: “(i) when does a device have the ‘capacity’ to perform the two enumerated functions; and (ii) what precisely are those functions?” See Wash at *7, citing ACA Int’l at 695. After acknowledging that the D.C. Circuit’s answer to the second question is “somewhat less clear”, the Wash court concludes that the “matters” set aside by ACA Int’l includes “both the definition of a predictive dialer as an ATDS, and the discussion of potential capacity of autodialer function.” See Wash at *8, fn 2.

And that’s where things get interesting. When turning to an analysis of Bad Reyes, the Wash court steps out of the binary world we’ve been living in and suggests that Courts have been looking at the issue of ACA Int’l‘s impact on earlier FCC rulings all wrong. Instead,Wash specifically rejects the reasoning of Bad Reyes noting that “[b]y its plain language, the Court in ACA Int’l did not set aside the 2015 ruling, but rather ‘the Commission’s treatment of [which functions qualify a device as an autodialer].’” Wash at *8 citing ACA Int’l, 885 F.3d at 703.  Instead:

“As the court in ACA did not set aside a ruling, but rather the FCC’s treatment of the definition of an autodialer, this treatment was set aside from all previous FCC rulings.”

Wash at *8-9

Well look at that.

The Court concludes: “It was the clear intention of the D.C. Circuit to set aside all such competing definitions until the FCC cho[o]ses to clearly establish that the ‘must be able to generate and dial random or sequential numbers’ standard is no longer a requirement for a device to be considered an ATDS.”

On behalf of TCPAland, I’d like to start a slow clap.

Wash feels like a defining moment in the seesaw battle over the ATDS definition. Just like when Good Reyes came out, I read Wash and think of course that’s the answer. Why couldn’t I see it before? ACA Int’l didn’t set aside any specific rulings or orders. Rather it rejected the specific reasoning of the FCC in approaching a specific matter–the definition of an ATDS. And that reasoning was clearly rejected across all of the FCC’s earlier rulings. This is similar to the analysis of True Blue, of course, but the Wash Court really breaks it down into much-needed baby steps.

Notably the Court goes on to deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss because the Plaintiff–truthfully?–alleged that the dialer has the present capacity to randomly generate numbers to be dialed. See Wash at *10. That, the Court finds, is sufficient to state a TCPA claim under the statutory definition. Pretty non-controversial conclusion.

And–in further proof that HI is in the eye of the beholder–the Court pivots to a finding that human intervention “looks to the time a call or message is sent or dialer, not what might have happened earlier to enter the phone number into the system.” Wash at *13.  This, of course, is directly inconsistent with the recent ruling in Ramos and underscores why texters/callers should never count on human intervention for salvation.

—

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Womble Bond Dickinson. WBDpowers our TCPA case law chart and provides a steady stream of their timely, insightful and entertaining take on this ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment topic. WBD – and all insideARM articles – are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) has strict rules regarding when a debt collector can and cannot communicate directly with the consumer. For example, a debt collector cannot communicate directly with the consumer if the collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney except for in a limited set of circumstances.

The Seventh Circuit recently reviewed the issue of communicating with a consumer in the context of a collection lawsuit where the consumer’s attorney had not yet entered an appearance with the court but the debt collector knew that the consumer had an attorney. In Holcomb v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg, LLC, No. 17-2532 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018), the Seventh Circuit found no violation in this particular set of facts due to the way the Illinois Supreme Court Rules are written.

Factual and Procedural Background

Portfolio Recovery Associates purchased Betty Holcomb’s (plaintiff-appellee) credit card debt and hired Freedman Anselmo Lindberg, LLC (Freedman), a law firm, to collect it. Freedman filed a collections complaint in state court. Initially, Plaintiff-appellee represented herself in this action but at some point retained an attorney. Plaintiff-appellee’s counsel appeared on her behalf at several court hearings but never officially entered an appearance with the court.

Freedman went on to file a motion for default judgment against plaintiff-appellee. Per local state court rules, Freedman was required to serve the motion on the other party’s “attorney of record,” otherwise service would need to be made on the party. Since plaintiff-appellee’s attorney had not yet entered an appearance in the case, Freedman served the motion for default directly upon plaintiff-appellee as required by the court rules and on plaintiff-appellee’s counsel.

Plaintiff-appellee then filed a claim against Freedman alleging that it violated the FDCPA by communicating directly with her even though Freedman knew she was represented by an attorney. The trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee, a decision that Freedman appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Decision

The Seventh Circuit overturned the trial court’s decision, stating that Freedman had no choice but to serve the motion for default upon the consumer. In making its decision, the Seventh Circuit delved into the FDCPA exceptions and the relevant state law.

Looking at the FDCPA, the court notes that the statute permits communication directly with a consumer even if the consumer is represented by counsel if the debt collector has “express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction.” The court found that the local court rules fall into that category.

The court noted that the Illinois Supreme Court Rules required Freedman to serve plaintiff-appellee directly. The Court Rules require that the party itself must be served if there is no attorney of record. The court was unswayed by plaintiff-appellee’s argument that Freedman knew of her attorney and had seen her attorney representing her at court hearings during this case. The court pointed to Illinois’ bright line rule that filing a written appearance or other pleading with the court is the only way to become an attorney of record. Since plaintiff-appellee’s attorney never filed a notice of appearance nor a signed pleading, plaintiff-appellee had no attorney of record for the purpose of service and thus service on plaintiff-appellee was proper. 

insideARM Perspective

While this ruling illuminates the bright-line rules of communicating with a consumer in this particular context, it is important to note that this is not universally applicable. The court looked directly at the Illinois Supreme Court Rules, which very specifically outline what is required to become an attorney of record and how to serve court documents on the other side. Other state court rules may differ, so it is important to review the facts of each situation individually.