Fair Debt Collection. Gloria Mahon incurred a bill of $279.70 for medical services ren-dered by Dr. Larry Bowen. For more than two years, Bowen sent monthly billing statements to the Mahons at their home address (where they had lived for forty-five

Question

years). Getting no re-sponse, Bowen assigned the collection of their account to Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc Credit Bureau uses computerized collection tracking and filing software, known as Columbia Ultimate Business Systems (CUBS). CUBS automatically generates standardized collection notices and acts as an electronic filing system for each account, recording all collection activities, including which notices are sent to whom and on what date. Credit Bureau employees monitor the activity, routinely noting whether an envelope is returned undelivered. Credit Bureau mailed three CUBS—generated notices to the Mahons. According to Credit Bureau's records, the notices were not returned and the Mahons did not respond. Credit Bureau reported the Mahons' account as delinquent. The Mahons filed a suit in a federal district court against Credit Bureau, alleging in part that the agency had failed to send a validation notice, as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment. Should a notice be considered sent only if a debtor acknowledges its receipt? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Fair debt collection
The court granted Credit Bureau's motion, and the Mahons appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The appellate court explained that "[h]aving already determined that the Notice required by the FDCPA was sent to the Mahons by the Credit Bureau, we presume that it was received shortly thereafter. Under the common law Mailbox Rule, proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is received by the addressee." The Mahons did not rebut this presumption. Also, in this case, "Credit Bureau's business practice established that no letters sent to the Mahons by the Credit Bureau were returned as undeliverable. . . . This would tend to establish [their] receipt by the Mahons, apart from the common law Mailbox Rule presumption."