Wise v. JP Morgan Chase

Background

Camille Willie Mae Wise alleged that she obtained a line of credit through Chase in 2017 to buy personal household goods and services. She alleged that the account was closed in 2017 and that she received no further communications from Chase about it. On July 31, 2020, she learned that Chase had reported the account as delinquent when she applied for a checking account with Spring Bank.

Wise then sent Chase a certified letter requesting validation of the debt. Chase responded that the debt was owed. After Wise filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Chase sent her a letter stating that the reporting was correct, would not be removed, and would continue. Wise later sued Chase, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). She filed the operative complaint without a lawyer.

FDCPA claim

The court explained that the FDCPA applies to a “debt collector,” meaning a person who regularly collects debts owed to another or whose main business is collecting debts. The statute excludes an employee of a creditor who collects debts for that creditor.

The court held that Chase was not alleged to be a debt collector. Wise alleged that Chase reported the delinquency, verified that the debt was owed, and refused to remove the information, but the court found that these allegations did not show that Chase was collecting a debt or attempting to collect a debt owed to someone else. The court therefore dismissed Wise’s FDCPA claims.

TILA claims

The court also dismissed Wise’s TILA claims. Wise cited several TILA provisions, including provisions concerning unauthorized credit-card use, required disclosures, and cancellation of certain consumer credit transactions. But the court found that she did not provide enough facts or explain how Chase’s conduct violated those provisions.

The court further held that any TILA claim based on the opening, terms, disclosures, or cancellation rights connected to the account was barred by TILA’s one-year filing deadline. Wise alleged that the account was opened and closed in 2017, while this action was filed in 2021.

The court also addressed Wise’s reference to the “Gold Repeal Act” and related 1930s laws. It stated that those laws concerned contract provisions requiring payment in gold, did not apply to obligations formed after 1977, and did not apply to the allegations in this case.

Leave to amend and disposition

Wise asked for permission to amend her complaint again if the court granted Chase’s motion. The court declined to grant that request. It concluded that another amendment could not cure the FDCPA defect because Chase did not qualify as a debt collector under the allegations, and that the TILA claims would remain barred by the statute of limitations.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Chase’s motion to dismiss, dismissed Wise’s Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, declined to permit a second amendment, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and terminated the case.