|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20580
|
Division of Credit Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection
|
|
May 17, 1994
John C. LaScuola
Wright, Constable & Skeen
250 W. Pratt Street, 13th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201-2467
Dear Mr. LaScuola:
This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1994 concerning
the propriety of court-ordered service of process on "a person
of suitable age and discretion at the place of business, dwelling
house or usual place of abode . . ." of a consumer, under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether such service
would constitute an impermissible third party communication in
violation of Section 805(b).
We answer in the negative. Ordinarily, such service might well
be considered an impermissible third party communication under
the Act. However, based on the legislative history of the Act
(see enclosed Staff Commentary), the Commission staff has interpreted
it to cover only "communications" undertaken as part
of the traditional debt collection process (e.g., dunning
letters) and not notices sent to a consumer in accordance with
a specific statutory requirement as a condition precedent to the
exercise of a legal right. Additionally, Congressman Annunzio,
a sponsor of the Act, further pinpointed congressional intent
by stating that "only collection activities, not legal activities,
are covered by the Act." The Act does not apply to attorneys
"when they are performing tasks of a legal nature."(1)
Since effective service of process is required by Maryland law
as a condition precedent to proceeding with a lawsuit, we do not
believe that it is a "communication" undertaken as part
of the traditional debt collection process. It is also in the
nature of a "legal activity" which, as previously stated,
we believe is exempt from the Act. This is true particularly if
the service is ordered by a court. Therefore, since service of
process is not covered by the Act, serving a third party in the
circumstances you describe would not violate Section 805(b) even
if the debt is disclosed.
I trust that this answers your question.
Sincerely,
John F. LeFevre
1. 132 Cong. Rec. H141 (daily ed. October
14, 1986).
|
