IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND
______Term, 2023
ACM-REG-2045-2022
HERBERT GUSTAVUS SOWE
Appellant
v.
RONNIE EBONY TURNER
Appellee
On appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore County,
Maryland
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
HERBERT GUSTAVUS SOWE
11620 Reisterstown Road #210
Reisterstown, Maryland 211136-6222
443-381-9311
Boltondelta@gmail.com
Appellant, pro se
SUSAN PARKS
CHILD SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION
211 Schilling Road Suite 102
Hunts Valley, Maryland 21031
Appellee’s Attorney
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS 1
STANDARD OF REVIEW 3
ARGUMENTS 3
I. THE CSEA IS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE FAIR DEBT
COLLECTION LAWS 3
II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 6
CONCLUSION 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9
APPENDIX 10
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Awah v. Capital One Bank, NA, 2015 WL 302880, at *4, n.8 (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2015) 4
Beatty v. Trailmaster Prods., Inc., 330 Md. 726, 737 (1993) 7
Dashiell v. Meeks, 396 Md. 149, 165 (2006) 3
Dick v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 63 Md. App. 270, 279, (1985) 4
Fischbach v. Fischbach, 187 Md. App. 61, 75 (2009) 3
Green v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 152 Md. App. 32, 42 (2003) 4
Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 452, 464 (D. Md. 2013) 4
Moura v. Randall, 119 Md. App. 632, 640 (1998) 7
Tall v. Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs of Baltimore, 120 Md. App. 236, 246 (1998 6
Statutes
12 C.F.R. § 1006.34(d) 4
15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2021) 4
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(10) 5
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(11) 5
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(8) 5
Md.Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201(b) 4
Md.Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201(c) 5
Md.Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-202(10) 5, 6
Other Authorities
Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F), 86 Fed Reg. 5766 (Jan. 19, 2021), at 5855 4
4
Rules
Maryland Rule 2-501 6
App. 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case concerns unexplained additional payments charged by the Child Support
Enforcement Agency (“CSEA”) to Appellant. Appellant received an Income Withholding
for Support NCP, which in addition to the $950.00 Child Support payment that Appellant
is remitting monthly via the CSEA contained an additional $450.00 monthly on top of the
$950.00 monthly payments. All attempts by Appellant to get an explanation for the
required additional payments have been unsuccessful because, for over 45 days, CSEA
failed to respond to Appellant. Appellant therefore filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. No hearing date was set for the motion, and neither CSEA nor the Appellee
filed a response to the Motion. Finally, the Court denied the Motion on December 30,
2022, without providing any reasons for the denial.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the CSEA is in violation of federal and state fair debt collection laws
2. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant received an Income Withholding for Support NCP dated September 13,
2022 (E. 43). The Income Withholding is in addition to the $950.00 Child Support
payment that the Appellant is remitting monthly via the CSEA. The only difference this
time is that the CSEA wanted an additional $450.00 monthly on top of the $950.00
monthly Child Support amount that they were already collecting from Appellant.
App. 1
Appellant filed a Motion for a Modification on January 14, 2019. Consequently,
on April 4, 2019, Appellant filed and served a request to set Hearing/Trial on the Motion
to Modify Child Support. A Court Hearing was scheduled.
Appellant attended the scheduled Court Hearing only to learn that it was
postponed without any notice sent to him. However, it was reported that it was held and
concluded when in actuality it never occurred. No court hearing was ever scheduled after
the postponement, which necessitated Appellant to request a Verification and Validation
of Debt, since Appellant was unemployed during this period. Appellant can prove his
reported Federal and State Income Tax earnings for the years he was unemployed.
On May 12, 2020 and July 28, 2022 an Exception to the Magistrate’s Ruling was
filed with the Circuit Court. Once again, it was postponed/reset with no rulings, and with
no good cause. Once again, Appellant requested a Debt Verification and Validation of the
Debt following his receipt of the Withholding for Support NCP dated September 13,
2022.
Appellant responded with a Notice of Opportunity to Prove Claim dated October
5, 2022 providing the Child Support Enforcement Administration thirty days to respond
to the Validation of the Debt and Proof of Claim. No response was ever received. (E. 52)
Thereafter, Appellant sent a follow-up Letter entitled “Following-Up on a Notice
of Opportunity to Prove Claim – Presentment Income Withholding for Support NCP”,
dated November 12, 2022. (E. 60) During this period an additional fifteen days was
provided following the initial thirty days provided. Once again, this gave them the
opportunity to Validate the Debt and Prove the Claim. No response was ever received.
App. 1
After 45 days of not receiving any response from the CSEA validating the debt
and proving the claim, Appellant resorted to filing a Motion for Summary Judgment in
accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p,
showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. (E. 34) Appellant asked the
Circuit Court to issue a Summary Judgment on at least one of the claim. No trial was held
on the Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 30, 2022, the Judge issued a
decision denying Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court did not provide
any written reasons for the denial of the motion.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Circuit Court for Baltimore County
located in Towson, Maryland on December 7, 2022. (E. 65) Thereafter, on February 2,
2023, Appellant filed a Civil Appeal Information Report with the Appellate Court of
Maryland. (E. 66)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of appellate review for a denial of a motion for summary judgment is
whether the trial court was legally correct. Williams v. Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 114, 753
A.2d 41, 48 (2000).
ARGUMENTS
I. THE CSEA IS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE FAIR DEBT
COLLECTION LAWS
The Federal Debt Collection Practices Act is designed to protect consumers who
have been victimized by unscrupulous debt collectors. The FDCPA requires debt
collectors to provide consumers with a validation notice that includes the name of the
App. 1
creditor, the amount of the debt, and the disclosure of certain statutorily prescribed
consumer protection rights. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g (a) (2021). The Rule significantly
expands the requirements of the FDCPA by requiring significantly more information and
robust disclosures. These disclosures fall into three general categories: (i) information to
help consumers identify the debt; (ii) information about consumer protections; and (iii)
information to help consumers exercise their rights, including a tear-off dispute form with
prescribed prompts. See 12 C.F.R. § 1006.34(d); see also Debt Collection Practices
(Regulation F), 86 Fed Reg. 5766 (Jan. 19, 2021), at 5855.
The Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act applies more broadly than the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. See Awah v. Capital One Bank, NA, 2015 WL
302880, at *4, n.8 (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2015) ("The MCDCA contains a broader definition of
'collector' than the definition of 'debt collector' under the FDCPA."). The MCDCA
defines "collector" as "a person collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt arising
out of a consumer transaction." See Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201(b).
Accordingly, cognizant of the plain meaning of such language, courts in Maryland have
specifically acknowledged that creditors are appropriate respondents in MCDCA claims.
See, e.g., Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 452, 464 (D. Md.
2013) (stating that "the MCDCA allows for recovery against creditors that attempt to
collect debts when there is no right to do so". See also Green v. Ford Motor Credit Co.,
152 Md. App. 32, 42 (2003); Dick v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 63 Md. App.
270, 279, (1985). In turn, a "consumer transaction" is "any transaction involving a person
App. 1
seeking or acquiring real or personal property, services, money, or credit for personal,
family, or household purposes." Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201(c).
The MCDCA also provides that a collector may not "[e]ngage in unlicensed debt
collection activity in violation of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act …." Md.
Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-202(10). It is also a violation of the MCDCA to “[c]laim,
attempt, or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist.” Md.
Code, Com. Law § 14-202(8). It is also a violation of the MCDCA for the Appellee to
“[e]ngage in unlicensed debt collection activity in violation of the Maryland Collection
Agency Licensing Act.” Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(10). Lastly, the MCDCA
considers it a violation of fair debt collection to “[e]ngage in any conduct that violates §§
804 through 812 of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” See Md. Code, Com.
Law § 14-202(11).
In this appeal, Appellant asserts that the CSEA attempted to collect an illegal debt
in violation of both MCDCA and FDCPA. First, CSEA failed to produce a validation
notice as required under FDCPA. Appellant never received any correspondence
referencing any arrears or non-payment of child support. Also, as already stated,
Appellant requested a Debt Verification and Validation of the Debt following his receipt
of the Withholding for Support NCP dated September 13, 2022. He then sent CSEA a
Notice of Opportunity to Prove Claim dated October 5, 2022 providing the CSEA thirty
days to respond to the Validation of the Debt and Proof of Claim. (E. 52) No response
was ever received. He then sent CSEA a follow-up dated November 12, 2022, in which
he added fifteen days following the initial thirty days provided. (E. 60) Once again, this
App. 1
gave CSEA the opportunity to Validate the Debt and Prove the Claim. No response was
ever received. After 45 days of not receiving any response from CSEA validating the
debt and proving the claim, Appellant filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, which
the Court denied.
Next, it is not clear whether CSEA is a licensed debt collection agency. CSEA
itself has failed to prove whether it is so licensed. It follows; any attempt to collect debt
by CSEA makes the collection an unlicensed debt collection activity under Md. Code
Ann., Com. Law, § 14-202(10).
Also, CSEA attempts to collect a debt with knowledge that they have no right to
the claimed amount. At least, CSEA has failed to explain how the origin of the debt.
Appellant received an Income Withholding for Support NCP, which in addition to the
$950.00 Child Support payment that Appellant is remitting monthly via the CSEA,
contained an additional $450.00 monthly on top of the $950.00 monthly payments. All
attempts by Appellant to get an explanation for the required additional payments have
been unsuccessful because, for over 45 days, CSEA has failed to respond to Appellant.
The foregoing conduct by CSEA violates both the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The trial court should grant a motion for summary judgment "if the motion and
response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in
App. 1
whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Jones v.
Mid-Atlantic Funding Company, 362 Md. 661, 675 (Md. 2001).
In this appeal, Appellant asserts that there was no genuine issue of material facts.
As Appellant has already stated, the CSEA attempted to collect an illegal debt in
violation of both MCDCA and FDCPA. As a matter of fact, the CSEA not only failed to
respond to Appellant’s request for a validation of the debt, they also failed to respond to
Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. It is therefore Appellant’s contention that the
Trial Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment without giving any reasons. After CSEA failed to respond to Appellant after
the 45 days, Appellant resorted to filing the Motion for Summary Judgment. (E. 34)
Again, CSEA failed to respond to the Motion. Consequently, the Court set no hearing
date for the motion, and finally on December 30, 2022, issued a decision denying the
motion.
The fact that neither CSEA nor Appellee challenged the motion for summary
judgment shows that there was no genuine issue of material fact. It was CSEA’s
responsibility to adduce any evidence to demonstrate the presence of any genuine issue of
material fact, which then would have justified the Trial Court’s decision to deny the
motion for summary judgment.
In light of the foregoing, the Trial Court’s decision to deny Appellant’s motion for
summary judgment is arbitrary, capricious, and unfair. Besides, failure to give reasons for
the denial of the motion curtails Appellant’s right to a fair trial.
App. 1
III. APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT WAS VIOLATED
The due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 24 of the
Maryland Declaration of Rights protect an individual’s interests in substantive and
procedural due process.
One of the objectives of due process is “to ensure that individuals who have
property rights are not subject to arbitrary governmental deprivation of those rights.” See
K.C. Davis & R.J. Pierce, Jr., Administrative Law Treatise § 9.4 at 35 (3d ed. 1994).
Therefore, "Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions [that]
deprive individuals of `liberty' or `property' interests within the meaning of the Due
Process Clause…" Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18
(1976).
A fundamental component "of the procedural due process right is the guarantee of
an opportunity to be heard and its instrumental corollary, a promise of prior notice." See
Lawrence Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 10-15, at 732 (2nd ed.1988).
In this case, CSEA violated Md. Code, Fam. Law § 10-119 (c) ( i ) & ( ii ). Md.
Code, Fam. Law § 10-119 (c) ( i ) provides that “Before supplying any information to the
Motor Vehicle Administration under this section, the Administration shall: (i) send
written notice of the proposed action to the obligor” and “give the obligor a reasonable
opportunity to request an investigation of the proposed action of the Administration.” See
Md. Code, Fam. Law § 10-119 (c) ( ii ).
App. 1
First, Appellant never received any correspondence showing his arrears and non-
payment of child support. CSEA, in violation of the law cited above, referred Appellant’s
name to the Motor Vehicle Administration without sending Appellant a notice.
On July 5, 2022, Appellant received a letter from the Maryland Department of
Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration, which notified Appellant of the
suspension of his driving license. Consequently, on July 25, 2022, Appellant’s driving
license was suspended, in violation of Appellant’s due process rights.
Appellant is gainfully employed. Child support deductions are made on his
account bi-weekly. Appellant is also a business owner and a Traffic Engineering
Technologist. Appellant therefore largely depends on his driving license to carry his day-
to-day activities. Notably, he visits different work sites and performs other business
functions.
It follows; the suspension of his driving license would therefore curtail
Appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle in the course of his employment, his ability to
be in compliance with the Child Support Order, his ability to attend doctor’s
appointments and spiritual activities. Further, Appellant has no readily available
alternative means of transportation to and from his workplace. Appellant would therefore
find it hard to support his daughter financially, and would not meet his child support
obligations.
In light of the foregoing, Appellant’s due process rights were violated when CSEA
sent Appellant’s information to the Motor Vehicle Administration without sending
Appellant a notice as required under Md. Code, Fam. Law § 10-119 (c) ( i ) & ( ii ).
App. 1
CONCLUSION
There is no genuine issue of material fact if CSEA raised no challenge to
Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Besides, the Trial Court should have granted
Appellant’s motion for summary judgment since Appellant showed how CSEA violated
applicable fair debt collection laws. The Trial Court’s failure to set a hearing date for the
motion for summary judgment, and its failure to provide any reason for the denial of the
motion, amounts to an abuse of the Court’s discretion. The Trial Court’s decision entered
on December 30, 2022 should be reversed. Appellant also prays this Court issue any
further order it deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: __________
___________________________
HERBERT GUSTAVUS SOWE
11620 Reisterstown Road #210
Reisterstown, Maryland 211136-6222
443-381-9311
Boltondelta@gmail.com
Appellant, pro se
Statement pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(8): This brief was prepared with
proportionally spaced type, using Times New Roman font and 13pt type size.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
App. 1
The undersigned hereby certifies that he served a copy of the foregoing brief on
counsel for the Appellee by depositing a copy, contained in a first-class postage-paid
wrapper or envelope, at an office of the United States Postal Service, addressed as
follows:
SUSAN PARKS
CHILD SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION
211 Schilling Road Suite 102
Hunts Valley, Maryland 21031
Appellee’s Attorney
___________________________
HERBERT GUSTAVUS SOWE
11620 Reisterstown Road #210
Reisterstown, Maryland 211136-6222
443-381-9311
Boltondelta@gmail.com
Appellant, pro se
APPENDIX
App. 1
Statutes
12 C.F.R. § 1006.34(d) ……………………………………………………………. App. 1
15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2021) ………………………………………………………. App. 2
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(10) ……………………………………………….. App. 3
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(11) ……………………………………………….. App. 4
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(8) ………………………………………………… App. 5
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201(b) ………………………………………….. App. 6
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201(c) ………………………………………….. App. 7
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-202(10) ………………………………………… App. 8
Md. Code, Fam. Law § 10-119 (c) ( i ) & ( ii )………………………………………… App.9
Rules
Maryland Rule 2-501 …………………………………………………………….. App. 10
Other Authorities
Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F), 86 Fed Reg. 5766 (Jan. 19, 2021), at 5855
…………………………………………………………………………………….. App. 11
App. 1
12 C.F.R. § 1006.34(d)
(d) Form of validation information –
(1) In general. The validation information required by paragraph (c) of this section
must be clear and conspicuous.
(2) Safe harbor –
(i) In general. Model Form B-1 in appendix B to this part contains the validation
information required by paragraph (c) of this section and certain optional disclosures
permitted by paragraph (d)(3) of this section. A debt collector who uses Model
Form B-1 complies with the information and form requirements of paragraphs (c)
and (d)(1) of this section, including if the debt collector:
(A) Omits any or all of the optional disclosures shown on Model Form B-1; or
(B) Adds any or all of the optional disclosures described in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section that are not shown on Model Form B-1, provided that any such optional
disclosures are no more prominent than any of the validation information required
by paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) Certain disclosures on a separate page. A debt collector who uses Model Form
B-1 as described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section and who, pursuant to
paragraph (c)(2)(viii) or (c)(5) of this section, includes certain disclosures on a
separate page in the same communication with the validation notice and, on the
notice, the required statement referring to those disclosures, receives a safe harbor
for compliance with the information and form requirements of paragraphs (c) and
(d)(1) of this section except with respect to the disclosures on the separate page.
(iii) Substantially similar form. A debt collector who uses Model Form B-1 as
described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section may make changes to the form
and retain a safe harbor for compliance with the information and form requirements
of paragraphs (c) and (d)(1) of this section provided that the form remains
substantially similar to Model Form B-1.
(3) Optional disclosures. A debt collector may include any of the following
information when providing the validation information required by paragraph (c) of
this section. A debt collector who includes any of the following information receives
the safe harbor described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, provided that the debt
App. 1
collector otherwise uses Model Form B-1 in appendix B to this part, or a variation of
Model Form B-1, as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(i) Telephone contact information. The debt collector's telephone contact
information.
(ii) Reference code. A number or code that the debt collector uses to identify the
debt or the consumer.
(iii) Payment disclosures. Either or both of the following phrases:
(A) The statement, “Contact us about your payment options.”, using that phrase or
a substantially similar phrase; and
(B) Below the consumer-response information required by paragraphs (c)(4)(i)
and (ii) of this section, the statement, “I enclosed this amount:”, using that phrase
or a substantially similar phrase, payment instructions after that statement, and a
prompt.
(iv) Disclosures under applicable law –
(A) Disclosures on the reverse of the validation notice. On the reverse of the
validation notice, any disclosures that are specifically required by, or that provide
safe harbors under, applicable law and, if any such disclosures are included, a
statement on the front of the validation notice referring to those disclosures. Any
such disclosures must not appear directly on the reverse of the consumer-response
information required by paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(B) Disclosures on the front of the validation notice. If a debt collector is
collecting time-barred debt, on the front of the validation notice below the
disclosure required by paragraph (c)(2)(ix) of this section, any time-barred debt
disclosure that is specifically required by, or that provides a safe harbor under,
applicable law, provided that applicable law specifies the content of the disclosure.
(v) Information about electronic communications. The following information:
(A) The debt collector's website and email address.
(B) If the validation information is not provided electronically, a statement
explaining how a consumer can, as described in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this
section, dispute the debt or request original-creditor information electronically.
App. 1
(vi) Spanish-language translation disclosures. Either or both of the following
disclosures regarding a consumer's ability to request a Spanish-language translation
of a validation notice:
(A) The statement, “Póngase en contacto con nosotros para solicitar una copia de
este formulario en español” (which means “Contact us to request a copy of this
form in Spanish”), using that phrase or a substantially similar phrase in Spanish. If
providing this optional disclosure, a debt collector may include supplemental
information in Spanish that specifies how a consumer may request a Spanish-
language validation notice.
(B) With the consumer-response information required by paragraph (c)(4) of this
section, the statement “Quiero este formulario en español” (which means “I want
this form in Spanish”), using that phrase or a substantially similar phrase in
Spanish, next to a prompt.
(vii) The merchant brand, affinity brand, or facility name, if any, associated with the
debt.
(viii) If a debt collector is collecting debt other than debt related to a consumer
financial product or service as defined in § 1006.2(f), the information specified in
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) or (c)(3)(iv) of this section.
(4) Validation notices delivered electronically. If a debt collector delivers a validation
notice electronically, a debt collector may, at its option, format the validation notice
as follows:
(i) Prompts. Any prompt required by paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (ii) or paragraph
(d)(3)(iii)(B) or (d)(3)(vi)(B) of this section may be displayed electronically as a
fillable field.
(ii) Hyperlinks. Hyperlinks may be embedded that, when clicked:
(A) Connect a consumer to the debt collector's website;
(B) Connect a consumer to the Bureau's debt collection website as disclosed
pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section; or
(C) Permit a consumer to respond to the dispute and original-creditor information
prompts required by paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
App. 2
15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2021)
(a)NOTICE OF DEBT; CONTENTSWithin five days after the initial communication with
a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the
following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid
the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice,
disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be
valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-
day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain
verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such
verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period,
the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the
original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
App. 4
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(10)
In collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt a collector may not:
(1) Use or threaten force or violence;
(2) Threaten criminal prosecution, unless the transaction involved the violation of a
criminal statute;
(3) Disclose or threaten to disclose information which affects the debtor's reputation for
credit worthiness with knowledge that the information is false;
(4) Except as permitted by statute, contact a person's employer with respect to a
delinquent indebtedness before obtaining final judgment against the debtor;
(5) Except as permitted by statute, disclose or threaten to disclose to a person other than
the debtor or his spouse or, if the debtor is a minor, his parent, information which affects
the debtor's reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge that the
other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information;
(6) Communicate with the debtor or a person related to him with the frequency, at the
unusual hours, or in any other manner as reasonably can be expected to abuse or harass
the debtor;
(7) Use obscene or grossly abusive language in communicating with the debtor or a
person related to him;
(8) Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not
exist;
(9) Use a communication which simulates legal or judicial process or gives the
appearance of being authorized, issued, or approved by a government, governmental
agency, or lawyer when it is not;
(10) Engage in unlicensed debt collection activity in violation of the Maryland Collection
Agency Licensing Act; or
(11) Engage in any conduct that violates §§ 804 through 812 of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
App. 4
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(11)
In collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt a collector may not:
(11) Engage in any conduct that violates §§ 804 through 812 of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
App. 5
Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-202(8)
In collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt a collector may not:
(8) Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not
exist;
App. 7
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201(b)
(b) “Collector” means a person collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt
arising out of a consumer transaction.
App. 7
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201(c)
(c) “Consumer transaction” means any transaction involving a person seeking or
acquiring real or personal property, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or
household purposes.
App. 8
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-202(10)
In collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt a collector may not:
(10) Engage in unlicensed debt collection activity in violation of the Maryland Collection
Agency Licensing Act; or
App. 10
Md. Code, Fam. Law § 10-119 (c) ( i ) & ( ii ).
(c)
(1) Before supplying any information to the Motor Vehicle Administration under this
section, the Administration shall:
(i) send written notice of the proposed action to the obligor, including notice of the
obligor's right to request an investigation on any of the following grounds:
1. the information regarding the reported arrearage is inaccurate;
2. suspension of the obligor's license or privilege to drive would be an impediment to
the obligor's current or potential employment; or
3. suspension of the obligor's license or privilege to drive would place an undue
hardship on the obligor because of the obligor's: A. documented disability
resulting in a verified inability to work; or B. inability to comply with the court
order; and
(ii) give the obligor a reasonable opportunity to request an investigation of the proposed
action of the Administration.
App. 10
Maryland Rule 2-501
(a) Motion. Any party may file a written motion for summary judgment on all or part of
an action on the ground that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that
the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion shall be supported by
affidavit if it is (1) filed before the day on which the adverse party's initial pleading or
motion is filed or (2) based on facts not contained in the record. A motion for summary
judgment may not be filed:(A) after any evidence is received at trial on the merits,
or(B) unless permission of the court is granted, after the deadline for dispositive motions
specified in the scheduling order entered pursuant to Rule 2-504(b)(1)(E).
Committee note: This Rule does not prevent the trial court from exercising its discretion
during trial to entertain any motions in limine or other preclusive motions that may have
the same effect as summary judgment and lead to a motion for judgment under Md.
Rule 2-519. See, e.g., Univ. of Md. Medical System Corporation, et al. v. Rebecca Marie
Waldt, et al., 411 Md. 207 (2009). Such a procedure avoids confusion and potential due
process deprivations associated with summary judgment motions raised orally or at
trial. See Beyer v. Morgan State Univ., 369 Md. 335, 359, fn. 16 (2002); see also Hanson
v. Polk County Land, Inc., 608 F.2d 129, 131 (5th Cir. 1979) (allowing oral motions for
summary judgment leads to confusion with each side having a different recollection of
what was contended.) Requiring a written motion also insures adequate notice to all
sides.
(b) Response. A response to a motion for summary judgment shall be in writing and shall
(1) identify with particularity each material fact as to which it is contended that there is a
genuine dispute and (2) as to each such fact, identify and attach the relevant portion of
the specific document, discovery response, transcript of testimony (by page and line), or
other statement under oath that demonstrates the dispute. A response asserting the
existence of a material fact or controverting any fact contained in the record shall be
supported by an affidavit or other written statement under oath.(c) Form of Affidavit. An
affidavit supporting or opposing a motion for summary judgment shall be made upon
personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and
shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the
affidavit.(d) Affidavit of Defense Not Available. If the court is satisfied from the
affidavit of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment that the facts essential to
justify the opposition cannot be set forth for reasons stated in the affidavit, the court may
deny the motion or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or
discovery to be conducted or may enter any other order that justice
requires.(e) Contradictory Affidavit or Statement.(1) A party may file a motion to
strike an affidavit or other statement under oath to the extent that it contradicts any prior
sworn statement of the person making the affidavit or statement. Prior sworn statements
include (A) testimony at a prior hearing, (B) an answer to an interrogatory, and (C)
deposition testimony that has not been corrected by changes made within the time
App. 10
allowed by Rule 2-415.(2) If the court finds that the affidavit or other statement under
oath materially contradicts the prior sworn statement, the court shall strike the
contradictory part unless the court determines that (A) the person reasonably believed the
prior statement to be true based on facts known to the person at the time the prior
statement was made, and (B) the statement in the affidavit or other statement under oath
is based on facts that were not known to the person and could not reasonably have been
known to the person at the time the prior statement was made or, if the prior statement
was made in a deposition, within the time allowed by Rule 2-415(d) for correcting the
deposition.(f) Entry of Judgment. The court shall enter judgment in favor of or against
the moving party if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. By order pursuant to Rule 2-602(b), the court may direct
entry of judgment (1) for or against one or more but less than all of the parties to the
action, (2) upon one or more but less than all of the claims presented by a party to the
action, or (3) for some but less than all of the amount requested when the claim for relief
is for money only and the court reserves disposition of the balance of the amount
requested. If the judgment is entered against a party in default for failure to appear in the
action, the clerk promptly shall send a copy of the judgment to that party at the party's
last known address appearing in the court file.
Cross reference: Section 521 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. app. §§
501et seq., imposes specific requirements that must be fulfilled before a default judgment
may be entered.
(g) Order Specifying Issues or Facts Not in Dispute. When a ruling on a motion for
summary judgment does not dispose of the entire action and a trial is necessary, the court
may enter an order specifying the issues or facts that are not in genuine dispute. The
order controls the subsequent course of the action but may be modified by the court to
prevent manifest injustice.
Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-501
App. 11
Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F), 86 Fed Reg. 5766 (Jan. 19, 2021), at 5855
(3) Information about consumer protections. (i) The date that the debt collector will
consider the end date of the validation period and a statement that, if the consumer
notifies the debt collector in writing on or before that date that the debt, or any portion of
the debt, is disputed, the debt collector must cease collection of the debt, or the disputed
portion of the debt, until the debt collector sends the consumer either verification of the
debt or a copy of a judgment. (ii) The date that the debt collector will consider the end
date of the validation period and a statement that, if the consumer requests in writing on
or before that date the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector must
cease collection of the debt until the debt collector sends the consumer the name and
address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. (iii) The date that
the debt collector will consider the end date of the validation period and a statement that,
unless the consumer contacts the debt collector to dispute the validity of the debt, or any
portion of the debt, on or before that date, the debt collector will assume that the debt is
valid. (iv) If the debt collector is collecting debt related to a consumer financial product
or service as defined in § 1006.2(f), a statement that informs the consumer that additional
information regarding consumer protections in debt collection is available on the
Bureau’s website at www.cfpb.gov/debtcollection. (v) If the debt collector sends the
validation notice electronically, a statement explaining how a consumer can, as described
in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, dispute the debt or request original-creditor
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )