Collections: Fraudulent Conversion or Removal of Property Subject to Lien or Title

     If a creditor is a lien holder, that creditor should be aware of a lesser known remedy available if a debtor fraudulently sells, removes, or hides the property subject to the lien. Virginia Code §18.2-115 states that a debtor is guilty of larceny if he/she fraudulently sells, pledges, pawns, removes from the premises agreed upon, removes from Virginia, disposes of, or hides the property subject to a lien without the written consent of the owner or lienor or the person in whom the title is, or, if the writing is a deed of trust, without the written consent of the trustee or beneficiary in such deed of trust. Unlike civil fraud, this statute’s fraud contemplates an act by a debtor intended to deprive a secured creditor of his collateral by appropriating it to the debtor’s own use. 

     There must be proof that the debtor’s fraudulent intent was directed against the lienor or person in whom the title is. The statute also states that failure or refusal to disclose the location of the property or surrender the property shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this statute. In Lewis v. First National Bank, the Fourth Circuit clarified that even the existence of written permission to remove the collateral is immaterial under this section, as the creditor need not show the lack of such permission to make out a prima facie case. 

     The final provision of the statute provides that the venue of prosecution against persons fraudulently removing any such property, including motor vehicles, from the Commonwealth shall be the county or city in which such property or motor vehicle was purchased or in which the accused last had a legal residence.

     Debtors may argue that the debtor did not actually receive the demand for return of the collateral; however, in Lewis, failure to leave a functional forwarding address or contact with the creditor constituted a waiver of the debtor’s right to deny that the demand was made. 

     Debtors have also argued that criminal charges such as these cause emotional distress or are extreme and outrageous. In Lewis¸ the Fourth Circuit stated that creditors should not be fearful of a debtor’s claim that these charges cause emotional distress. To hold such would render the statute useless, which was not intended by the legislature. The court held that the initiation of criminal proceedings against someone under this section with probably cause is not extreme or outrageous as a matter of law. 

Collections: Bad Check Collection and the Fair Debt Practices Collection Act

     Those who actively engage in the collection of debts as a third party are cognizant of the fact that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies to their collection activities. However, does the FDCPA apply to notices given as a prerequisite to criminal prosecution for passing bad checks? The United States District Court at Charlottesville, Virginia, in the case of Shifflett v. Accelerated Recovery, examined the issue but did not give a definitive answer.
     Virginia Code §18.2-183 states that letters are required to be mailed to debtors to establish a prima facie case of fraud or knowledge of insufficient funds in order to pursue criminal prosecution. The creditor/defendant in Shifflett argued that it had never sought recovery through the civil process, it had always pursued a criminal warrant in cases where it was unable to collect an unpaid check.
     The debtors/plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the creditor was required to give notices pursuant to the FDCPA. The essence of the debtors' argument was that the notices sent by the creditor, regardless of the creditor's practice or intent, constituted a "communication" pursuant to the language of FDCPA §1692(a) and therefore trigger the notice requirements of FDCPA §1692(a).
     The Court did not rule as to whether the FDCPA applies to notices pursuant to Virginia Code §18.2-183. Instead, the Court focused on distinctions between the creditor's letters in Shifflett and that which is required by Virginia Code §18.2-183 for criminal prosecution. The Court found that the creditor's letters did not evidence the creditor's intent to pursue criminal remedies as opposed to civil remedies. The creditor claimed that the language of its letters referring to "the legal process" indicated its intent to use the criminal legal process not the civil legal process. The Court, however, stated that it was unable to discern precisely in what manner the phrase "legal process" objectively discriminates between the criminal legal process and the civil legal process.
     The Court also noted that the creditor's letters also advised the debtors that payment must be made within ten days from the date of the letter. Virginia Code §18.2-183 provides that notice mailed by certified mail or registered mail with evidence of returned receipt shall be deemed sufficient and equivalent to notice having been received by the maker or drawer. The creditor did not present evidence that it sent the letters by either certified or registered mail with the request of a returned receipt.
     The Court also noted that the creditor's letters stated explicitly that it is "attempting to collect a debt..." By contrast, the Court stated that it could not locate any language within the letters by which even vaguely suggest that the creditor had sent the notices in furtherance of pursuing a criminal proceeding.
     Accordingly, the Court found that the creditor failed to demonstrate that the letters were sent to the debtors pursuant to the requirements of Virginia Code §18.2-183, and therefore, found the creditor liable for its failure to comply with the notice requirements of §1692(a) of the FDCPA.
     The lesson from Shifflett - when contemplating pursuing legal measures for “bad checks” it is important to use counsel with experience in both criminal and civil law.