Barnes v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the \amount of the debt\ means the \exact dollar amount owed\ as of the date of the letter
• including the total credit card balance, as opposed to just the debt collector’s balance, in a dunning letter “would be absurd” because it “would defeat the provision’s very purpose by increasing the confusion”
• “Plaintiffs’ argument seems to forget who the defendant is. ACCT, not MBNA [creditor], is the collector here, so the ‘amount of the debt’ must be that owed to the former”
• “[T]he ‘amount of the debt’ must be that owed to the [collector], meaning the amount past due. Whatever may be owed to [the original creditor ] . . . is of no consequence to this case.”
• “Absent some particularly ambiguous language in the rest of the letter, we cannot see how an unsophisticated consumer would interpret the tear off to indicate that anything other than the ‘Current Amount Due’ was ‘the amount of the debt.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).