Debt collection
Chapman v. TD Bank N.A.
Date: May 2, 2025
Issue: Whether TD Bank violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA) by using a name other than its “true name” to collect a debt.
Case Summary: A West Virginia federal court granted in part TD Bank’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the bank violated the WVCCPA by using a name other than its “true name” to collect a debt.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is the federal corollary to the WVCCPA. Under the WVCCPA, debt collectors are prohibited from using any fraudulent or deceptive means, including using a company other than the true name of the company, to collect or attempt to collect debt.
Adam Chapman sued TD Bank, alleging it violated the WVCCPA by using a name other than its true name to collect a debt. Chapman alleged that TD Bank used the names “Samsung Financing” and “TD Retail Card Services” in its account statement instead of “TD Bank N.A.” while attempting to collect the debt. He also accused the bank of operating as an unlicensed debt collector and forming an illegal or tortious joint venture. However, in his response to TD Bank’s motion to dismiss, Chapman offered to withdraw these additional claims, and the court accepted his withdrawal.
In its motion to dismiss, TD Bank argued that Chapman failed to state a valid claim. It contended that Chapman’s WVCCPA claim related to account statements should fail because account statements do not qualify as collection notices under the statute. TD Bank also maintained that it did not use any fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representations in violation of the WVCCPA’s “true name” provision.
Judge Robert Chambers of the Southern District of West Virginia refused to dismiss Chapman’s claim that TD Bank violated Section 46A-2-127(a) of the WVCCPA by using names other than its true name to collect a debt. First, the court determined that TD Bank’s Account Statement may be considered in determining whether the bank violated the WVCCPA. TD Bank argued that its Account Statement could not violate Section 46A-2-127(a) because it did not seek to collect a debt. However, the court found that much of the language in the account statement could qualify as conduct aimed at collecting a claim from Chapman.
TD Bank also claimed that the statement functioned as a periodic billing notice containing information required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). But the court explained that even if it accepted this interpretation, TILA does not prohibit a periodic statement from serving as a means of debt collection. Finally, TD Bank asserted that West Virginia courts have held that billing statements containing TILA-required information do not violate the WVCCPA as a matter of law. The court rejected this argument, noting that while the cases TD Bank cited suggest monthly billing statements may not amount to collection practices, they did not establish that principle as a matter of law.
After deciding that it could properly consider the account statement when evaluating the WVCCPA claim, the court found that Chapman adequately alleged a violation of the statute’s true name provision. The court explained that the plain language of the WVCCPA requires a debt collector to use its official legal name when collecting a debt, and that a company can have only one true name. Based on this reasoning, the court concluded that Chapman sufficiently claimed TD Bank attempted to collect a debt using the names “Samsung Financing” and “TD Retail Card Services,” neither of which qualifies as TD Bank’s true legal name.
However, the court dismissed Chapman’s claim that TD Bank violated Section 46A-2-127(e) of the WVCCPA by attempting to collect debts in the name of unlicensed debt collectors. Chapman argued that TD Bank operated as an unregistered debt collector under the West Virginia Collection Agency Act (WVCAA), but the court noted that the WVCAA exempts banks. Chapman also claimed that TD Bank implicitly presented itself as state-bonded, even though it made no explicit representation to that effect. He asserted that by using fictitious names, TD Bank implied it was acting as a collection agency under the WVCAA, which would require it to be bonded. Rejecting this argument, the court explained that Chapman’s claims rest on the allegation that TD Bank used fictitious names to collect its own debt — conduct that, even if true, does not require a collection agency license under the WVCAA.
Bottom Line: The court dismissed the claims Chapman withdrew in their entirety, as well as the portion of the WVCCPA claim alleging violations under Section 46A-2-127(e). The portion of the WVCCPA claim alleging Section 46A-2-127(a) violations may proceed.
Document: Opinion
