A debt collector sent a letter to a consumer stating: “We can’t change the past, but we can help with your future.” The letter contained three payment options that were described as “discounts,” though one was merely a payment plan for the full balance. The letter advised “[i]f you pay your full balance, we will report your account as Paid in Full. If you pay less than your full balance, we will report your account as Paid in Full for less than the full balance.” The consumer filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of…
Posts published in “FDCPA”
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a defendant waived its right to arbitrate due to its “gratuitous delay” in seeking arbitration, where it waited 13 months after the filing of the lawsuit before moving to compel arbitration, and that any showing of prejudice to the non-moving party was not required. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying a motion to compel arbitration. A copy of the opinion in Smith v. GC Services Limited Partnership is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff applied for and received a credit card from a bank. The credit…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a plaintiff’s oral testimony that a $100 payment was demanded of her in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was insufficient to withstand summary judgment where the debt collector defendant produced documentary evidence to support its testimony that no such demand was made. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. A copy of the opinion in Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc. is available at: Link to Opinion. After the plaintiff fell behind on her…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a statement in a letter to the effect that forgiveness of the debt “might” be reported to the Internal Revenue Service may constitute a violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In so ruling, the Court reiterated that “even if the language in a letter is true, it can still be deceptive where ‘it can be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings, one of which is inaccurate.’” Accordingly, the Third Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the action and remanded for further…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a consumer waived his right under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to cease further communications by calling the debt collector and asking questions about the underlying debt. A copy of the opinion in Scheffler v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A. is available at: Link to Opinion. A law firm obtained a judgment against a debtor in connection with a credit card debt. The debtor was a former debt collector and had litigated a number of FDCPA claims against other debt collectors. The law firm mailed a garnishment notice to the debtor’s credit…
7th Cir. Holds Plaintiff’s Settlement of Parallel Claim Against Another Defendant Mooted FDCPA Claim
7th Cir. Holds Plaintiff’s Settlement of Parallel Claim Against Another Defendant Mooted FDCPA Claim
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a judgment against a debt collector, finding that the plaintiff’s settlement with the creditor for the same indivisible injury mooted the plaintiff’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims for statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs against the debt collector. A copy of the decision in Portalatin v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. As you may recall, the FDCPA requires a debt collector in the circumstances relevant to this appeal to file a complaint “only in the judicial district or similar legal…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the plaintiff carries the burden of proving the debt collector’s net worth to obtain statutory damages in a class action under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. A copy of the opinion in Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard is available at: Link to Opinion. A consumer financed the purchase of a computer through an installment loan. When the consumer defaulted, the creditor charged off the account and sold the debt to a third party. The third party referred the account to a law…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that service of a motion for default judgment directly upon a plaintiff consumer known to be represented by counsel did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, where the plaintiff’s attorney had yet to file a formal appearance. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the consumer because the state procedural rule at issue required the motion to be served directly upon the consumer, thus triggering the safe harbor provision of subsection 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA, which prohibits direct contact with…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a mortgage field servicing company’s actions were too attenuated from its mortgage servicer client’s own debt collection efforts to be considered a debt collector under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting the company’s motion for summary judgment. A copy of the opinion in Schlaf v. Safeguard Property, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff homeowners owned property that was subject to an FHA-insured mortgage loan serviced by a mortgage loan servicer. The plaintiffs defaulted…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently concluded that collection letters sent to consumers offering to settle their debt but warning them that the settlement “may have tax consequences” did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The plaintiffs had argued that the letters were false and misleading because they were insolvent and, as such, would not have incurred any tax liability for any discharged debt. The Seventh Circuit rejected the argument, concluding that the term “may” only meant there could be tax consequences, and it was possible insolvent debtors would become solvent before settling…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that seeking to collect compound interest in violation of state usury law results in a misrepresentation of the amount of a debt in material violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the trial court’s judgment against the consumer, in part, as to his claims for alleged violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq., based on a letter that sought to collect compound interest on the subject debt, in violation of Minnesota’s usury statute. A copy…
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued its highly anticipated ruling on July 25 in a CFPB enforcement action against an Ohio debt collection law firm, concluding that the firm’s attorneys were “meaningfully involved” in the collections process and entering judgment in favor of the law firm. The decision followed an advisory jury’s verdict, which found the law firm’s pre-suit collection letters contained “false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of a debt” while rejecting a claim that the firm’s attorneys were not meaningfully involved in the debt collection process in…