Badeen v. PAR, Inc.

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court held that forwarding companies fall within the statutory definition of a "collection agency" under MCL 339.901(b) when they solicit unpaid debts from creditors for allocation to local collection agents. The Court vacated Part III(B) of the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of other defenses such as the interstate-communications licensing exemption.

Holdings

1. A forwarding company is a “collection agency” under MCL 339.901(b) when it contacts a creditor seeking unpaid debts to allocate to local collection agents.
2. Remand was required because the circuit court resolved the case solely on its interpretation of “collection agency” and did not decide defendants' other arguments, including the applicability of MCL 339.904(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether a forwarding company that contacts creditors seeking unpaid debts to allocate to local collection agents is a “collection agency” under MCL 339.901(b).
2. Whether the phrase “soliciting a claim for collection” means asking the debtor to pay the debt or asking a creditor for unpaid debts that the agency may pursue.
3. Whether the case should be remanded for consideration of defendants' unresolved arguments, including the interstate-communications exemption in MCL 339.904(2).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded