Rent Demand That Violates FDCPA Can Be Used in Nonpayment Case

Facts: Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. The court ruled for landlord. After tenant was evicted, he asked the court to reconsider the case. Landlord's three-day rent demand notice had been signed by landlord's attorney instead of landlord. Tenant claimed that this was a violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). That law states that if a debt collector sends a rent demand notice to a consumer, the notice must allow 30 days for payment and meet other requirements. In an earlier federal case, the court had ruled that a landlord's attorney was a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA, and if the attorney signed the rent demand notice, it had to comply with that law's requirements. Tenant argued that the court in this case couldn't rule for landlord because the attorney signed the rent demand in violation of the FDCPA. Court: Tenant loses. The court disagreed with the earlier federal court ruling, found that it wasn't binding, and refused to apply it. The court noted that the Federal Trade Commission didn't believe that the FDCPA was intended to apply to a notice, such as a rent demand notice in New York, which is otherwise required by law. And even if the notice violated the FDCPA, it wasn't necessarily invalid. And since the FDCPA doesn't impose sanctions, dismissal of a nonpayment case, based on a claimed violation of the law by landlord's agent or attorney, is beyond the scope of the FDCPA.

Wilson Han Assn. v. Arthur: NYLJ, p. 29, col. 4 (7/6/99) (App. T.2 Dept.; Aronin, JP, Scholnick, Patterson, JJ)