# Hartman v. Great Seneca Financial Corp.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · June 30, 2009 · 569 F.3d 606

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576845

## Case

- **Full name:** Delores HARTMAN (08-3773); Deborah L. Rice (08-3804), Plaintiffs-Appellants, United States of America, Intervenor, v. GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP.; Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 30, 2009
- **Citations:** 569 F.3d 606; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14110; 2009 WL 1852930
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Oliver
- **Judges:** Moore and White, Circuit Judges Oliver, District Judge
- **Cited by:** 83 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576845

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a debt collector’s action of sending a “document [that] appears to be a recent credit-card bill, which it is not, and with few indications to the contrary” is a “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether this document would deceive the least sophisticated consumer
- holding that where a jury could find that the least sophisticated consumer would be misled by a debt collection document, summary judgment for the defendant was improper under §§ 1692e and 1692f
- reversing a district court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether an exhibit filed in the state-court action would mislead the least sophisticated consumer
- finding there to be a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a document would “mislead the least sophisticated consumer” without consulting extrinsic evidence beyond the face of the letter itself

## Opinion text

OLIVER, District Judge,
concurring.
I concur in Judge Moore’s opinion, but I write separately to discuss the way in which I find Great Seneca’s document to be potentially misleading to the least sophisticated consumer.
While this case presents a close call, I find that there is slightly more than a scintilla of evidence to support the argument that the least sophisticated consumer would be misled into thinking that this document was a credit card statement from Great Seneca Financial Corporation. As stated in the majority opinion, the document facially resembles that of a credit card statement, as it is arranged in a tabular format with boxes for credit limit, credit available, and new transactions similar to a legitimate credit card statement. Additionally, it includes boxes for the statement closing date and the date of the transaction. In these boxes, Great Seneca has included dates that are years after the individual consumers acquired their debt with Providian. The least sophisticated consumer, in reviewing this document, could be misled into believing that it was a credit card statement for an account with Great Seneca that involved transactions that occurred on the date listed. That consumer might then conclude that he or she never opened a credit card with Great Seneca and did not engage in any transactions with Great Seneca on such a date. This interpretation of the document would lead the least sophisticated consumer to disregard the statement as one merely issued in error. Accordingly, I concur that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to give rise to a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether this statement would mislead the least sophisticated consumer.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576845. Public record. Not legal advice.