Select Page

Wahl v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 556 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2009).

Because of interest and late fees, a debt of less than $70 ballooned to over $1000 by the time a bad debt buyer purchased it. The buyer stated that the balance it bought was “principal” and added its own interest thereafter. The plaintiff had to show both that the statement was false, and that it would mislead the unsophisticated consumer. From the perspective of the debt buyer, the interest charged by the original creditor was very much part of the principal. Defendant obtained the entire debt, including interest, presumably for pennies on the dollar; so the starting or original amount owed, as far as it was concerned, was full amount of the debt. The amount of the debt from the collector’s perspective was what it was seeking. This would not be technically false or deceptive to the consumer.


Very relevant. Midland added interest from the time of charge-off — NOT from the time when it purchased my accounts.


Not only is this one more reason to have ALL Midland judgments vacated, but the FDCPA needs to be enhanced to state that collectors MUST provide the interest rate and the time period they charged interest.

I’ve seen a decision stating that the collector does NOT need to disclose the interest rate — totally crazy!

I’m going to look for people with Midland judgments, settlements and even open accounts, although it is impossible to determine what the DATES interest was charged for from their collection letter — which is WHY the FDCPA has to be updated.

The consumer lawyers totally failed us again.

I can’t wait for discovery or whatever is next!