ELIZABETH PETER Plaintiff-Appellant v. GC Services L.P, DLS ENTERPRISES INC

Elizabeth Peter owed a student debt to the US Department of Education. She got a letter from the defendant, GC Services, dated April 12, 2000. The message was written in block style using the same font on two pages that were printed on the same sheet of paper. Elizabeth Peter owed the US Department of Education $2300 in student loan debt, and the letter was an effort to collect it. Despite coming from the GC Services, the letter’s return address was forwarded to the US Department of Education. The letter also indicated that there was a penalty of $ 300 which was to be charged on Elizabeth Peter for private use. The address was;

“US Department of Education

P.O BOX 4144

Greenville, TX 75403-4114

Official Business

Penalty for Private use, $ 300.”

Issue 1: Was the action taken by the GC Services to use an envelope with a return address of the United States Department of Education Illegal?

Rule: The US code § 1692f discusses the unfair practices which should not be taken by debt collectors. It notes that a debt collector should not consider unconscionable ways of collecting or attempting to collect debts. Some of the violations noted in the code include:

Collection of any amount which is not authorized by the agreement of the debtor by law.

Acceptance of postdated payment instrument by more than five days unless the intent is made known to the person, not more than ten days or less than three working days.

Solicitation of a debt collector through payment instruments for purposes of creating threats.

Threatening to deposit or actual depositing of payment instruments which are postdated before the exact date of the check.

Making charges to any person for communication while concealing the role of the communication.

Threats which involve nonjudicial actions such as dispossession of property if the property is not part of the security interest, If intentions to take the property are non-existent if law exempts the property from such actions.

Use of language or symbol which is not the debt collector’s address or any other communication address which does not belong to the debt collector.

Peters argued that the defendant had violated this law by using the United States Department of Education’s name and address on the envelope that she had received.

Analysis: GC Services sent a letter to Elizabeth Peter where they claimed that she needed to pay them a total of $ 2300 student loan debt which she owed the United States Department of Education. In the letter received by Elizabeth Peter, GC services used United States Department of Education as their name and return address. The defendant’s use of US Department of Education name and address is illegal as spelled in the United States Fair Debt Collection Act. Despite the defendant’s defense that the use of the address was a mere ”Benign language” the court ruled pointed out that GC Services impersonated the United States Department of Education hence deceived Elizabeth Peter.

Response to Issue 1: Yes

Issue 2: Should the two corporations GS Financial and DLS enterprise who were in partnership with GS Service be also held responsible for the United States Fair Debt Collection Act Violation?

Rule: GS Financial and DLS Enterprises are corporations in partnership with the defendant, GS Services. According to the two companies, they were not liable for the accusations as they were not debt collectors the way law defined in U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6). It notes that ”any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another.” The term is also inclusive of any person whose sole purpose is enforcement of security interests. The clause excludes:

Any employee is acting on behalf of the creditor.

Any person or corporation related to the creditor and the person or corporation’s principal business is not debt collection.

Officer of the government on official duty.

Analysis: GS Financial and DSL Enterprises are Delaware based partners to GS Services. On Peters v. GS Services GS Financial and DLS Enterprises do not believe they are liable. Despite the fact that the two corporations were not Debt collectors as law 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (6) states, they have an obligation to actions by the GS Services as the Delaware law indicates. The Del C. § 15-306(a) (2001) notes that ”…all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership unless otherwise agreed by the claimant or provided by law.” Due to this law, GS Financial, as well as DLS Enterprises, are responsible just like GS Services.

Response to Issue 2: Yes.