Interesting timing for this post from Public Citizen’s CL & P blog: “Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Claim Alleging That Discover Card’s Harassing Collection Activity Led to Cardholder’s Suicide.” The opinion can be found here, in PDF. (MacDermid v. Discover Card Services, Op. No. 07-0198.)

Briefly: In this opinion for the Sixth Circuit, the Court overturned a district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim against Discover. The plaintiff, both for himself and as the executor of his wife’s estate, claimed Discover’s harassing collection efforts exacerbated his wife’s diagnosed bipolar disorder, leading to her eventual suicide. The magistrate, to whom the case was referred (as often happens in federal court), noted that the wife’s acquisition of the cards in question (as well as the spending itself) were all symptoms of her severe mental illness (she’d signed up for the cards under his name, with herself as an authorized purchaser); her husband had made considerable effort to control both the manic behavior and the effects. When the truth came out about the cards, he canceled them and alerted the issuers that he’d never applied for them. 

The wife killed herself, to the husband’s surprise; although he knew of her illness, nothing in her behavior (except for a slightly more relaxed demeanor) alerted him to her plans. The psychiatrist who reviewed the records, and had treated the wife earlier, noted the following in his report:

As my attached hand-written notes indicate, Ms. MacDermid was primarily concerned by the recent allegation by a credit card creditor that she had been guilty of “credit card fraud.” …  She was terrified at the prospect of going to jail and causing further embarrassment to her family, particularly her husband. … [S]he was preoccupied with the allegations of credit card fraud, and that it appeared to be the primary stressor which contributed to the deterioration of her emotional and mental condition in April and May of 2003. Subsequent to her selfinflicted gunshot death on June 13, 2003, it was reported to me by Mr. Don MacDermid, her husband, that she had just been threatened with immediate jailing by credit representatives of Discover Card, and that her fear and embarrassment related to the threat of incarceration appeared to be paramount in the voiced fears which led to her suicide.

Summary judgment was granted to Discover on the wrongful death claim; other claims were dismissed (including FDCPA and TILA claims and state law claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress). The court’s opinion reviews these claims generally, in the context of debt collection harassment suits, and for that reason alone the opinion would be worth your while. The court affirmed the dismissals of all the claims (including the FDCPA - because Discover was collecting for itself, and was not a “debt collector” under the statute), and affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the wrongful death claim. But the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was revived, and that’s good news for Mr. MacDermid, for now he gets to present his testimony and evidence to the jury - evidence of conversations including salient comments such as the following:

MacDermid also related in his complaint a telephone conversation that he had on April 9, 2003 with
Adonica Gilmore, a Discover employee. Because MacDermid had taped the conversation, he was
able to describe it in some detail in his complaint:
• that she [Adonica Gilmore] had checked with the local District Attorney’s office and
had spoken with a lady named “Harriott” who had told her that, under the facts
described above, Mr. MacDermid is legally liable for his wife’s charge card; and
• that she had filed a report with the Giles County Sheriff’s office; and
• that Harriott Barkly of the Giles County District Attorney’s office, advised her that
because the MacDermids were married, and because Mr. MacDermid was aware of
his wife’s problem, he “should keep a better eye on her” and should “keep her away
from the internet”; and
• [that Adonica Gilmore stated about Mrs. MacDermid,] “I don’t think you want her
going . . . well you know”; and
• that there was no need for him to talk to a lawyer, because, even though there was
no signature, and it was procured on the Internet, Mrs. MacDermid’s application is
binding on Mr. MacDermid, and he is definitely liable; and
• that [Adonica Gilmore stated], if the matter could not be resolved, “I’ll just call
Harriott” . . . and have the authorities “take a little trip out to your house.”

Wow.

Technorati Tags: FDCPA

Powered by ScribeFire.