Debt Collector's Use Of 1st Amendment To Get Default Judgment Against Mentally Disabled Debtor Without Giving Proper Notice Slammed By Alaska Supremes

Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, recently announced:

• The Alaska Supreme Court ruled [last month] that debt collectors who employ unfair or deceptive tactics during collection lawsuits are not shielded by the First Amendment.(1)

***

• The case arose out of an attempt by a collection agency to sue Robin Pepper, a mentally disabled woman, without providing her with proper notice. The agency sent papers to a nonexistent address, misrepresented to the court that Pepper was competent, and tried to get a default judgment against her.

• Pepper, represented by Alaska Legal Services,(2) then brought a separate lawsuit, alleging that the collection agency’s practices violated the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The collection agency asked the court to dismiss Pepper’s case on the theory that its litigation conduct was protected by the First Amendment, which provides a right of access to the courts. The lower court agreed and dismissed Pepper’s case. Alaska Legal Services asked Public Citizen to handle the case on appeal.(3)

• The Alaska Supreme Court broadly rejected the debt collector’s immunity defense, ruling that the First Amendment’s petition clause does not extend to conduct that was unfair, deceptive, and in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. Quoting Public Citizen’s brief, the court ruled that debt collectors have “no legitimate interest in pursuing collection litigation without notifying debtors, or in seeking to default incompetent debtors without notice to their lawyers or guardians.”(4)(5)

For Public Citizen's press release, see Debt collectors drubbed by Alaska high court (Constitution Does Not Shield Abusive Tactics by Debt Collectors, Alaska Supreme Court Rules).

For the ruling of the Alaska Supreme Court, see Pepper v. Routh Crabtree, APC, Supreme Court No. S-13042, No. 6437, 2009 Alas. LEXIS 160 (November 20, 2009).

(1) According to the press release, this case is the first ruling on the issue by any court nationwide. Debt collection firms have raised a constitutional defense, based on the right to petition the courts, in a series of consumer cases. This ruling overturns a lower-court decision that had ruled in favor of a collection agency.

(2) Alaska Legal Services is a private, nonprofit law firm that provides free civil legal assistance to low-income Alaskans.

(3) Also appearing in this lawsuit, as "friends of the court" on behalf of the consumer, were the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the National Consumer Law Center.

(4) “The Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling sends the message that debt collection companies can’t get away with abusive tactics simply by hiring lawyers,” said Deepak Gupta, the Public Citizen attorney who argued the case. “The court rejected a dangerous new immunity defense that would have created a gaping hole in consumer protection law.”

(5) Had the court ruled in the debt collection agency's favor, collectors would be in a position to slap judgment liens against any real estate owned by defaulting debtors and force the sale of those properties (subject to any applicable state or federal homestead exemption protections), as well as garnish the wages and seize the bank accounts belonging to these unwitting victims. For more on debt collectors and their attorneys obtaining default judgments against unwitting consumers by failing to serve proper notice of the lawsuit on them (ie. "sewer service"), see Justice Disserved: A Preliminary Analysis of the Exceptionally Low Appearance Rate by Defendants in Lawsuits Filed in the Civil Court of the City of New York.