The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Florida affirmed a trial court’s holding that claims under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) cannot not be assigned. In KAC 2021-1, LLC v. Mary T. Matuskah Irrevocable Trust, the plaintiff was an assignee of a tenant who leased property from the defendant trust. The tenant failed to make her monthly payments for four months and the defendant posted an “8-Day Notice” on her front door, which stated the amount due and demanded payment of the rent or possession of the property. The tenant alleged the notice faced outward so it could be seen by anyone and was specifically seen by the FedEx driver who dropped off a package, embarrassing her.
The tenant assigned the plaintiff all her rights to damages from the defendant’s FCCPA violations and any claims arising out of the lease. The plaintiff sued, alleging two FCCPA violations: (1) disclosing information to a third party that affected the tenant’s reputation when the third party had no legitimate need for that information; and (2) posting the tenant’s name to the public to enforce collection. The defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that claims under the FCCPA are not assignable and the trial court agreed.
The Court of Appeals first noted that the FCCPA allows a “debtor” to bring a civil action, defining “debtor” as any natural person obligated to pay a debt arising out of a consumer transaction. The court next remarked the allegations here were harm to reputation and invasion of privacy, both personal torts not assignable under Florida law. The court found that the fact that the FCCPA is a statute did not change the nature of the claims.
Because the FCCPA is modeled on the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), the Court of Appeals next turned to federal courts’ analysis of whether claims under the FDCPA are assignable, finding that every federal court considering this question unequivocally determined that such claims are non-assignable personal claims. The state courts looking at similar consumer protection statutes reached the same conclusion, as allowing consumers to assign the claims would sidestep the consumer protection intent of these statutes. Based on this analysis, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.