From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Am. Mut. Holdings Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jun 23, 2017
Case No.: 1:13-cv-1072 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 23, 2017)

Summary

noting that bringing a suit for fraud in state court is an attempt to collect a "debt" and discussing in depth and approvingly Third Circuit decision that bounced checks do constitute debts within the meaning of the FDCPA

Summary of this case from Woodard v. O'Brien

Opinion

Case No.: 1:13-cv-1072

06-23-2017

PATRICIA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MUTUAL HOLDINGS INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green in this action (ECF No. 61). The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed.

ACCORDINGLY, the Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted as the opinion of the Court.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED on the issue of liability. The Court finds each defendant has violated the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. Issues relating to the determination of damages and an award of costs and attorney fees will be resolved after Plaintiff files a proper motion with the Court which shall be filed within 28 days. Dated: June 23, 2017

/s/ Paul L. Maloney

Paul L. Maloney

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Brown v. Am. Mut. Holdings Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jun 23, 2017
Case No.: 1:13-cv-1072 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 23, 2017)

noting that bringing a suit for fraud in state court is an attempt to collect a "debt" and discussing in depth and approvingly Third Circuit decision that bounced checks do constitute debts within the meaning of the FDCPA

Summary of this case from Woodard v. O'Brien

noting that bringing a suit for fraud in state court is an attempt to collect a "debt" and discussing in depth and approvingly Third Circuit decision that bounced checks do constitute debts within the meaning of the FDCPA

Summary of this case from Woodard v. O'Brien
Case details for

Brown v. Am. Mut. Holdings Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MUTUAL HOLDINGS INC., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 23, 2017

Citations

Case No.: 1:13-cv-1072 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 23, 2017)

Citing Cases

Woodard v. O'Brien

Gradisher v. Check Enf't Unit, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 988, 990 (W.D. Mich. 2001) ("The collection of the…

Woodard v. O'Brien

We harbor no doubt that a check evidences the drawer's obligation to pay for the purchases made with the…