Consumer Law : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act –  MMPA –  Statute Of Limitations

Where a plaintiff brought an action against an attorney claiming violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based on the attorney’s attempts to collet payment allegedly owed for dental services, the judgment is reversed and remanded because the FDCPA claim was not barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the plaintiff alleged violations such as the attorney failing to appear at trial which occurred within one year of the date the federal claim was filed, and the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the attorney’s collection actions were “in connection with” the sale of the dental services.

‘In connection with’

Dissenting opinion by Wilson, J.: “In holding the legal services Mr. Barton provided to LifeSmile were ‘in connection with’ the sale of LifeSmile’s dental services to Mr. Jackson for purposes of his MMPA claim, the principal opinion misapplies Conway v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 438 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. banc 2014), and unjustifiably expands the purview of the MMPA. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the circuit court’s judgment dismissing Mr. Jackson’s MMPA claim against Mr. Barton.”

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Jackson v. Barton (MLW No. 71575/Case No. SC95771 – 22 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Breckenridge, J.; Draper, Russell and Stith, JJ., concur; Wilson, J., dissents in separate opinion filed; Fischer, C.J., concurs in opinion of Wilson, J.; Powell, J., not participating) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Bresnahan, J. (Bryan E. Brody and Alexander J. Cornwell, St. Louis, for appellant) (Dennis J. Barton III, pro se).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)