Deloris Kojetin v. C U Recovery, Inc. ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-3151
    ___________
    Deloris Kojetin,                     *
    *
    Appellee,          * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the District
    v.                              * of Minnesota.
    *
    C U Recovery, Inc., a Minnesota      *      [PUBLISHED]
    Corporation,                         *
    *
    Appellant.         *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 8, 2000
    Filed: May 18, 2000
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    C U Recovery, Inc. (CUR) appeals the district court's adverse judgment in
    Deloris Kojetin's action to recover damages for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
    Practices Act (FDCPA). After Kojetin signed a promissory note from a credit union
    for her son's car loan, the credit union referred the note to CUR for recovery after the
    loan went into default. Kojetin brought this action against CUR because its validation
    notice misrepresented the amount of the debt after CUR added fifteen percent of the
    principal balance to Kojetin's obligation. The district court concluded that CUR's
    notice violated the Act by adding the collection fee based on a percentage rather than
    on actual costs when Kojetin's agreement with the credit union provided she was liable
    only for actual costs. Having considered the record, the parties' submissions, and the
    relevant Minnesota law, see Campbell v. Worman, 
    60 N.W. 668
     (Minn. 1894), we are
    satisfied the district court committed no error of law and judgment was correctly
    granted for the reasons stated in the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's
    report and recommendation. Contrary to CUR's view, we agree with the district court's
    conclusion that CUR violated the FDCPA when it charged Kojetin a collection fee
    based on a percentage of the principal balance that remained due rather than the actual
    cost of the collection. We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-3151

Filed Date: 5/18/2000

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015