Magistrate Judge Marian Payson
Henchen, who sued Renovo Services LLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), moved for attorney fees as a "successful party" under the FDCPA. According to Henchen, because he rejected Renovo’s offer of judgment that was silent as to attorney fees, he is entitled to attorney fees in addition to the amount specified in the offer of judgment. Renovo opposed the motion on the grounds that the amount specified in the offer of judgment was intended to settle all of Henchen’s claims against Renovo, including attorney fees. Renovo alternatively contended the parties had no meeting of the minds on attorney fees, and therefore the judgment may not be enforced. The court denied motion for attorney fees, determining that the objective evidence relating to the offer and the acceptance establishes the mutual assent necessary to form a contract was lacking. It noted the language of Henchen’s acceptance, which explicitly stated his intention for attorney fees even though the offer was silent on the issue, suggests that Henchen contemplated the possibility that Renovo did not intend its offer to include fees. The court added that this puts the parties in the same position that they were in before the offer of judgment was served.
