United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
JAMES C. HARRINGTON Plaintiff,
FAY SERVICING, LLC, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Honorable Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge.
Harrington brought this action against Fay Servicing,
alleging that Fay's debt collection practices violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1692, et seq., and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et
seq. R.1, Compl. Specifically, Harrington alleges
that, after he defaulted on his mortgage loan, Fay engaged in
harassing and unfair collection tactics by making several
unannounced in-person visits to his home. Fay moves to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). R. 31, Mot. to Dismiss. For the
reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss is denied.
purposes of this motion, the Court accepts as true the
factual allegations in the Complaint. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Harrington's
relationship with Fay began in August 2016. Compl. ¶ 17.
That was when Fay acquired the servicing rights to
Harrington's mortgage loan, which had gone into default
several years earlier. Id. ¶ 13-14; 17.
the course of the next two years, collections representatives
from Fay would allegedly make a baker's dozen's worth
of unannounced visits to Harrington's home. Compl.
¶¶ 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29. During each of these
visits, the representatives delivered roughly the same
version of an unsigned form letter in an envelope addressed
to Harrington and marked “Personal and
Confidential.” Id. ¶ 19. The letter
stated that Harrington's mortgage had recently been
transferred to Fay, and that Fay was trying to reach
Harrington to discuss his account. Id. ¶ 20.
The letter also listed Harrington's options for paying
off the mortgage, including repayment plans, modifications,
settlements, short sale, and deed in lieu of foreclosure.
Id. The letter concluded by asking Harrington to
please call today. Id.
of these occasions, Harrington answered the door, while on
others, his spouse did. Compl. ¶¶ 19, 22, 35. When
Harrington was not available, the Fay representatives
allegedly “demanded” to speak to him.
Id. ¶¶ 19, 22. Moreover, Harrington's
home doubled as his place of business, id. ¶
25, so the visits to his home also interrupted his work. On
one date, for instance, Harrington “was holding a
meeting on the front porch of his residence/place of business
with his employees” when a Fay representative
“appeared once more unannounced.” Id.
are the dates and approximate times for each alleged visit:
1. August 30, 2016 2. September 2, 2016 at 11:50 a.m.
3. March 11, 2017 at 12.46 p.m.
4. March 14, 2017 at 12.47 p.m.
5. March 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
6. June 7, 2017 at 12:05 p.m.
7. June 10, 2017 at 11:50 a.m.
8. December 23, 2017 at 11:50 a.m.
9. December 30, 2017 at 1:20 p.m.
10. March 9, 2018 at 10:10 a.m.
11. June 11, 2018 at 5:45 p.m.
12. June 17, 2018 at 5:45 p.m.
13. June 23, 2018 at 10:10 a.m.
Compl. ¶¶ 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29. Harrington
alleges that, during each of these visits, either he or his
spouse told the Fay representatives “to cease and
desist future communication with” Harrington.
Id. ¶¶ 24; 35. According to Harrington, as
a result of these “in person face to face visits at his
residence, ” he “has suffered emotional distress,
annoyance, aggravation, and inconvenience.”
Id. ¶ 41.