Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “FDCPA”

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

7th Cir. Divided Panel Holds Debt Collector Liable Under FDCPA Despite Changes in Underlying Law at Issue

In a deeply divided opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an en banc review, reversed its previous opinion, Oliva v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, 825 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2016), holding this time that a debt collector that relied upon circuit precedent interpreting the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) venue provision was not protected by the bona fide error defense. In so ruling, the Court also held that for purposes of compliance with the FDCPA, reliance on court precedent is permitted, but only if there can be no doubt whatsoever as to the accuracy…

Third Circuit Serves Up Double Fault in FDCPA, TCPA Decision

A recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals examines both the provision of consent under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the bona fide error defense for debt collectors under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The decision has dire implications for debt collectors, creditors and any commercial enterprise using telephone technology and QR codes in communicating with customers. A copy of the decision in Daubert v. NRA Group, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. First up is the TCPA. The trial court ruled that the collection agency violated the TCPA when it used…

5th Cir. Holds Debt Collector’s Obligation to Report Debt as Disputed Not Limited By § 1692g

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in favor of the debtor and against a debt collector, where the debt collector failed to mark the debtor’s account as disputed when it credit reported the account. The debt collector admitted that it had not marked the account as disputed because it incorrectly believed that credit reporting a debt as disputed was subject to the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, which governs validation of a debt and the treatment of disputed debts. In so ruling, the Fifth…

U.S. Supreme Court Offers Some Clarity in Assessing Debt Purchaser FDCPA Liability

With its unanimous ruling yesterday that a debt buyer is not a “debt collector” under at least one reading of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the U.S. Supreme Court offered some clarity to the financial services industry seeking to assess debt purchaser FDCPA liability. It did, however, refuse to address an alternative interpretation that will likely be used in an attempt to end-run the ruling. The decision in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. is available at: Link to Opinion. Debt Collector Must Be Collecting for ‘Another’ Santander Consumer USA Inc. acquired defaulted loans from CitiFinancial Auto and then…

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Debt Purchaser Collecting Its Own Debt Is Not Subject to FDCPA

A purchaser of a defaulted debt who then seeks to collect the debt for itself is not a “debt collector” subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under an opinion delivered today by the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue before the Court was whether a purchaser of defaulted debt meets the FDCPA’s definition of a “debt collector” as one who “regularly collects or attempts to collect . . . debts owed or due . . . another.” 15 U. S. C. §1692a(6). Here, Santander Consumer USA Inc. acquired defaulted loans from CitiFinancial Auto and then began to collect…

11th Cir. Adopts ‘Claim Splitting’ Doctrine, Upholds Dismissal of Duplicative Litigation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and its analogue under Florida state law, because the plaintiff previously filed a separate lawsuit against the same defendant alleging violations of the TCPA based on the same conduct. Because the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the claims asserted in the second action were based on the same nucleus of operative facts, the plaintiff was barred from splitting her claims among the lawsuits. A copy of the opinion…

9th Cir. Amends, Reinforces Its Ruling that Foreclosure Trustees Are Not FDCPA ‘Debt Collectors’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently amended its opinion in Ho v. ReconTrust Co., maintaining and affirming its prior ruling that the trustee in a California non-judicial foreclosure did not qualify as a debt collector under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The amendments to the prior ruling among other things add that a California mortgage foreclosure trustee meets the FDCPA’s exclusion from the term “debt collector” for entities whose activities are “incidental to … a bona fide escrow arrangement” at 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F). The Ninth Circuit also removed its prior discussion of…

MD Ala. Holds Servicer Did Not Violate Discharge By Sending Periodic Statements, NOI, Delinquency Notices, Hazard Insurance Notices

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently held that a mortgage servicer did not violate the discharge injunction in 11 U.S.C. § 524 by sending the discharged borrowers monthly mortgage statements, delinquency notices, notices concerning hazard insurance, and a notice of intent to foreclose. Moreover, because the borrowers based their claims for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., on the violation of the discharge injunction, the Court also dismissed their FDCPA claims with prejudice. A copy of the opinion in Golden et al v. Carrington Mortgage Services,…

U.S. Supreme Court Holds FDCPA Not Violated By Proof of Claim on Time-Barred Debt

In a 5-3 decision handed down on May 15, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is not violated when a debt collector files a proof of claim for a debt subject to the bar of an expired limitations period. The decision: held that the filing of such a proof of claim is not false, misleading, deceptive or unconscionable in violation of sections 1692e or f of the FDCPA; found that claims under the bankruptcy code need not be capable of being “enforceable” in a civil lawsuit; and, does not…

11th Cir. Holds Post-Discharge Monthly Mortgage Statements Not Prohibited

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a mortgage loan borrower’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related state law claims because the defendant mortgagee was not a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA. In so ruling, the Court also rejected the borrower’s allegations that the monthly statements the mortgagee sent to the borrower after her bankruptcy discharge were impermissible implied assertions of a right to collect against her personally. A copy of the opinion in Helman v. Bank of America is available at: Link to Opinion. The borrower obtained a…

6th Cir. Rejects FDCPA Allegations of State Procedural Violations, Misrepresentations, Citing Spokeo

Relying on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) arising out of state procedural violations were not sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction without any corresponding concrete harm. A copy of the opinion in Lyshe v. Levy is available at:  Link to Opinion. A law firm brought a collection action in Ohio against a debtor.  The law firm served the debtor with discovery requests, but allegedly did not send a separate electronic copy as required, and also allegedly incorrectly indicated…

7th Cir. Holds Debt Collectors Did Not Violate FDCPA by Demanding Prejudgment Interest Under Wisconsin Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that two debt collectors were entitled to demand payment for both principal amounts owed and interest under Wisconsin law. Therefore, the Court held, the debt collectors’ dunning letters demanding the principal sums owed and 5 percent per annum interest did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, even where the demand was made prejudgment. A copy of the opinion in Aker v. Collection Associates, LTD. is available at:  Link to Opinion. After the consumer plaintiffs failed to pay their bill for medical services received, their providers referred…