From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
Bartlett v. Heibl
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
128 F.3d 497 (1997)
Facts
Credit-card company Micard hired attorney John Heibl (defendant) to collect a $1,700 debt from Curtis Bartlett (plaintiff). Heibl sent Bartlett a dunning letter (i.e., an overdue-payment notice) informing Bartlett that if Bartlett wanted to resolve the debt-collection matter before legal action was commenced against him, Bartlett needed to either pay $316 or contact Micard to make arrangements for payment within one week of receiving the letter. The letter also notified Bartlett that he had 30 days to dispute the debt and that if he did so, Heibl would mail Bartlett a verification of the debt. The letter provided that a lawsuit could be commenced against Bartlett any time before the expiration of the 30 days. Bartlett received Heibl’s letter but did not read it. Bartlett subsequently sued Heibl for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), asserting that Heibl’s letter violated the FDCPA by presenting the information about Bartlett’s rights in a confusing way. The district court entered judgment for Heibl, and Bartlett appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.