We’ve often discussed the ways in which debt collectors routinely use the taxpayer-funded court system to cut costs. Essentially, debt collection attorneys file hundreds (or thousands) of lawsuits against consumers in the hope that the consumer won’t show up to defend himself or herself. If that’s the case, getting a judgment against the consumer is a breeze. Judgment in hand, the debt collector can go about freezing a consumer’s bank account, garnishing his or her wages, and the like.

Some debt collection attorneys try to cut costs even further. According to a story in the Syracuse Post-Standard, Cohen & Slamowitz filed a lawsuit in Syracuse City Court against a consumer who didn’t even live in Syracuse. The reason? The story speculates that it’s cheaper to file lawsuits in upstate New York than it is in New York City or Long Island. However, the law says that a suit must be filed in the consumer’s judicial district. That could mean the consumer’s local court or the New York Supreme Court.

The consumer filed suit against Cohen & Slamowitz, who were collecting on behalf of Midland Funding, saying that the debt collection lawyers violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The U.S. District Court dismissed the suit, but a federal appeals court found that the term “judicial district” meant “the municipal court where the debtor actually lives or the state Supreme Court for the county of residence.” The appeals court said that the consumer’s lawsuit could move forward.