The case is progressing; Consumer files final brief before case is reconsidered

On February 1, 2022, Mr. Hunstein filed the last brief he can file before Tthe Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Atlanta on February 22, 2022 in the case of Hunstein v Preferred Collection & Management Services, Inc, 994 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2021). The brief was filed in response to Preferred’s January 18, 2022 brief, in which it urged the Eleventh Circuit to affirm the dismissal of the case brought by the district court.

For a recap of how we got here see this item.


In his brief, Mr. Hunstein argued:

  • Any transmission of data to an entity not explicitly listed in the FDCPA is prohibited; otherwise, debt collectors could label anyone their agent, and the definition of a debt collector in the FDCPA would be meaningless.

insideARM point of view:

Mr. Hunstein’s argument that separate companies cannot act as agents is perplexing sincene of the many definitions of the word “agent” is a “person or company who serves. » Although he mentions this position several times in his brief, Mr. Hunstein does not explain it. He attempts to claim that the letter seller was not an agent in the “traditional sense”, but his brief does not explain what that “traditional meaning” is or why the letter seller in this case did not meets these criteria.

Hopefully the Eleventh Circuit will see this argument for what it is: an empty shell with no substance. That said, if the court finds that a third party cannot be an agent unless they meet some unknown “traditional meaning” criteria, this could provide an excellent defense to the next creditor who is embroiled in a lawsuit for an alleged FDCPA violation of its collection agency.

Comments are closed.