SALT LAKE CITY (LN) — A federal judge in Utah refused Monday to wipe out Charles Young's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim against a constable and two debt-collection defendants, ruling that letters sent without legally required disclosures gave a jury enough to work with — while simultaneously axing Young's fraud claim and any shot at punitive damages.
U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart issued the written ruling April 28 after delivering an oral decision from the bench on April 22, at the close of Young's case-in-chief against defendants Michael Erickson, Rob Kolkman, and Kolkman's company, Constable Kolkman, LLC.
The FDCPA requires debt collectors to disclose in every communication that they are debt collectors, and to send consumers — within five days of first contact — the amount owed, the creditor's name, a 30-day dispute window, and information about obtaining the original creditor's identity. Young introduced letters from both Erickson and the Kolkman defendants that omitted those disclosures entirely.
Stewart found that evidence sufficient to survive the defendants' Rule 50 motion, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that the defendants violated the FDCPA. He noted that the first three elements of the claim — that Young is a consumer, that the debt arose from personal or household purposes, and that the defendants are debt collectors — were not in dispute.
The fraud claim fared worse. Young argued the defendants committed fraud by falsely representing they intended to sell his property when they never planned to follow through. But Stewart found the evidence fell short: one Erickson letter gave notice of a proposed sale with a date, time, and place, while a second told Young he could cancel by calling to make payment arrangements. Testimony from Andrea Croft established that the purpose of the sale notice was to encourage debtors to contact the constables and set up payment plans — the preferred collection method. That, Stewart ruled, was not legally sufficient for a jury to conclude Erickson never intended to conduct the sale or sent the letters to deceive.
The Kolkman defendants fared even better on fraud: Young produced no evidence of any false statement from them at all, with their only contacts consisting of a phone call about a payment and a letter noting a missed installment.
Punitive damages fell with the fraud claim, and Stewart added that even if fraud had survived, Young had not shown the clear and convincing evidence of willful and malicious conduct, intentional fraud, or knowing and reckless indifference to his rights that Utah law demands. Quinn Kofford, who owned the underlying debt, testified he preferred payment plans because he believed they were fairer to consumers than seizing property. The defendants themselves testified that they did not know their conduct exceeded their authority or that they were subject to FDCPA requirements at all.
What remains before the jury is the FDCPA claim and Young's request for compensatory damages. Young testified he made payments totaling around $400 and that the collection effort — spanning roughly seven months and involving in-person service of a writ of execution, three phone calls, and seven letters — caused him extreme stress and panic that worsened pre-existing medical conditions, triggered suicidal thoughts, and damaged family relationships.