# 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/9576846

## 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:** Dissent by White
- **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/9576846

## 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

WHITE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Plaintiffs’ claims rest on the assertion that the accounts attached to the complaints as Exhibit A are false, deceptive or misleading. The majority concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether defendants’ representations embodied in the accounts are deceptive or misleading. Because I agree with the district court that Exhibit A to the complaints would not mislead the least sophisticated consumer, Harvey v. Great Seneca Financial Corp., 453 F.3d 324 (6th Cir.2006), I would affirm.
The accounts attached to the complaints clearly stated that Great Seneca, the creditor, is the assignee of Unifund, assignee of Providian. Thus, the least sophisticated consumer would know that the complaint concerns a debt once owed to Providian. And, while the exhibits do, indeed, appear *619 to be credit card statements, the original debts were incurred by use of a credit card. Further, the account statements provide account numbers that match the original credit card accounts, thus giving additional notice of the source of the original obligation to Providian. On the other hand, the account statements do not purport to show purchases or charges; they are clearly summaries of the balances due on the debts once owed to Providian. Whether the account statements satisfy the requirements of Ohio law is a separate question, the answer to which does not affect whether the account statements are false, misleading or deceptive. I cannot agree that the use of these statements of account would mislead the least sophisticated consumer into believing that he or she incurred a recent debt by use of a credit card issued by Great Seneca. 1
Nor can I conclude that use of such account statements by an assignee as an attachment to a court complaint constitutes an “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. While one can conceive of circumstances where a court filing would amount to an unfair or unconscionable means of debt collection, the use of this form of statement to collect an otherwise valid and actionable debt is not unfair or unconscionable.
I would affirm.
. I note that plaintiffs’ complaints focus on the use of these statements of account to "falsely impl[y] that Defendants had possession of documentation from the original creditor which showed a precise amount due as of a 'statement closing date.' ” A similar claim was rejected in Harvey, 453 F.3d at 331-33 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576846. Public record. Not legal advice.