Consumer Protection: En banc court resolves credit dispute

Where a woman who was sued for defaulting on a credit account argued the debt collector lacked standing, but the parties disputed whether the debt collector was the assignee of the debt and whether the woman was a party to the contract by which the debt arose, a majority of the fractured en banc court held the circuit court did not err in denying the woman’s motion for summary judgment.

Background

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, or PRA, filed a warrant in debt against Mazie Green. The circuit court found that PRA was entitled to recover from Green and entered a judgment order in PRA’s favor. Green appealed to this court, arguing in part that the circuit court erred “because PRA lacked standing to sue” and “because her counterclaim was never heard.”

With one judge dissenting, a panel of this court held that “the assignment of rights alleged here created a standing issue,” and then considered PRA’s evidence in the circuit court— including evidence only adduced at trial—and concluded PRA had failed to “prove that [it] owns Green’s debt through a chain of title tracing back to CIT Bank.” Based on this holding, the majority held that the circuit court abused its discretion “by finding the debt was valid and dismissing Green’s counterclaim.” The court then granted PRA’s petition for a rehearing en banc.

Standing

By moving for summary judgment alleging lack of standing, Green necessarily contended that there were no material facts genuinely in dispute respecting PRA’s claim that it was the assignee and Green was liable for the debt. But based on the pleadings and documents that were before the circuit court at the summary judgment hearing, as viewed in the light most favorable to PRA, there were such facts genuinely in dispute. Because material facts concerning the alleged assignment of the debt and Green’s alleged contractual obligation to satisfy the debt were in dispute, the circuit court did not err in denying Green’s motion for summary judgment based on an alleged lack of standing.

FDCPA

Green argues the circuit court erred by denying her counterclaim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA, because the claim “was never heard violating due process.” The record reflects that Green appealed only the case concerning PRA’s claim against her, and did not appeal her FDCPA claim from the general district court to the circuit court. And because Green’s FDCPA claim was never appealed to the circuit court, the circuit court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction over that claim and it was error for the circuit court to rule on it.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Concurring opinion

Raphael, J., concurring.

I am pleased to join the majority opinion. I write separately to highlight the jurisprudential flaw in appellant Green’s position and the practical problems that would result from adopting it.

Concurring opinion

Ortiz, J., concurring, with whom Lorish, J., joins, concurring as to Part II.

I reluctantly concur in the court’s analysis because I agree that PRA had standing to bring a claim against Green and therefore that the trial court should be affirmed. I also agree that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Green’s FDCPA claims.

But I write separately to emphasize first, the prior actions by this court that prevented a self-represented, or “pro se” litigant from having the opportunity to be meaningfully heard by the en banc court. And, second, I write to note my concern with the court’s reliance on a line of criminal cases in strictly interpreting pleadings filed by a self-represented civil litigant.

Dissenting opinion

Causey, J., with whom Chaney, J. joins, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the en banc majority opinion. I would reverse and vacate the circuit court’s judgment against Green and remand for the court to enter final judgment that PRA does not have standing to sue Green, that Green does not owe a debt to PRA and to further consider Green’s counterclaim against PRA, over which the circuit court had jurisdiction.

Green v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, Record No. 0144-22-3, Dec. 17, 2024. CAV (en banc) (Malveaux). From the Circuit Court of Alleghany County (Stein). Matthew G. Rosendahl (Kristi C. Kelly; Kelly Guzzo, PLC, on briefs), for appellant. Monica Taylor Monday (L. Steven Emmert; James K. Trefil; Jonathan P. Floyd; Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, PC; Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, on brief), for appellee. VLW 024-7-368. 73 pp.