Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION

Docket No.: 11-1175
Argued: November 7, 2012
Decided: February 26, 2013

Topics:

9 U.S.C. 1, Civil Procedure, Consumer Protection, ERISA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Housing Act, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Truth in Lending, preemption

PartyNames: Olivea Marx v. General Revenue Corporation
Petitioner: Olivea Marx
Respondent: General Revenue Corporation

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Citation: 668 F.3d 1174
Supreme Court Docket

Olivea Marx
v.
General Revenue Corporation
Consideration Limited:

GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.

Question Presented:

1. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provides that, "[o]n a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs." 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that, "[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs-other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party." The first question presented is whether a prevailing defendant in an FDCPA case may be awarded costs where the lawsuit was not "brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment." 2. The FDCPA defines "communication" as "conveying of information concerning a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). The statute generally bars debt collectors from communicating "in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer." Id. § 1692c(b). An exception to this bar allows a debt collector to "communicat[ e]" with a debtor's employer solely to acquire "location information" about the debtor, but provides that a location information inquiry shall "not state that [the] consumer owes any debt" and not "indicate[] ... that the communication relates to the collection of a debt." Id. § 1692b. The second question presented is whether the FDCPA's strict limits on communications with third parties cease to apply when a debt collector, contacting a third party in connection with the collection of a debt, does not indicate the reason for the communication.

MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION
ORAL ARGUMENT

November 7, 2012

Listen to Oral Argument in MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION
Holding: AFFIRMED
Vote: 7-2

MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION
Case Documents

1MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION Oral Argument Audio
2MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)
3Slip Opinion in MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION (Opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas)
4PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
5REPLY BRIEF
6BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER
7BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AARP, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA, EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES, AND NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
8BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER
9BRIEF OF NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
10BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT
11BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION
12BRIEF OF ACA INTERNATIONAL AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
13BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETAIL COLLECTION ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT