Linda and Christopher Gunn fell behind in paying assessments owed to their homeowners’ association. When the debt reached about \($2,000,\) the association hired a law firm (Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel). It sent the Gunns a letter demanding payment. One sentence in this letter reads: “If Creditor has recorded a mechanic’s lien, covenants, mortgage, or security agreement, it may seek to foreclose such mechanic’s lien, covenants, mortgage, or security agreement.” This letter did not induce the Gunns to pay, and the law firm filed suit in state court—but the remedy it sought was damages for breach of contract rather than foreclosure. The Gunns replied with this suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), part of which forbids false or misleading statements in dunning letters. Although the Gunns acknowledge that the letter’s statement is true both factually and legally, they contend that it must be deemed false or misleading because the law firm would have found it too costly to pursue foreclosure to collect a \($2,000\) debt. The Gunns’ main argument is that they were annoyed or intimidated by the letter, which means that they were injured and eligible for relief under the FDCPA. What do you think of the Gunns’ claims? Is the letter “false or misleading” because it threatens something the Gunns are sure the law firm will not actually do? Is being “annoyed or intimidated” by a letter like the one sent to the Gunns entitle one to relief under the FDCPA? How did the court rule?