In Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., the Eight Circuit rejected to the debt buyer’s argument and the lower court’s holding that the FDCPA did not provide any protection to a person from whom the debt collector mistakenly sought payment because the person had the same name as the debtor. The debt buyer argued that it alleged that the correct James Dunham owed the debt but mistakenly sent that allegation to the plaintiff, the wrong James Dunham. The court noted that if the misidentified Dunham paid the obligation, the debt buyer would have likely found that “James Dunham” satisfied his payment obligation.
The court also focused on the FDCPA’s broad definition of term “consumer” which “means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.” The court concluded: “Simply put, a mistaken allegation is an allegation nonetheless. Thus, we read §1692a(3) to include individuals who are mistakenly dunned by debt collectors.”