Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Creditor's Failure to Send a Right to Cure Notice is not Grounds for a Monetary Damages Claim

A debtor ("Kirsch") recently sought monetary damages from his creditor ("Security Finance"), arguing that Security Finance had failed to provide sufficient notice of right to cure before commencing a debt collection action, as required by the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), §§ 425.104 and 425.105. Kirsch argued that this failure to comply with the WCA also constituted a violation of Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(g), which authorizes an independent private right of action for damages. In Security Finance v Kirsch, the Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, finding that a creditor's failure to send a notice of right to cure is a procedural error and is not a sufficient basis for a consumer to file a lawsuit seeking damages under the WCA. More ›

SCOTUS Determines Foreclosure Firm is Not a Debt Collector Under the FDCPA's Primary Definition

Less than three months after hearing oral arguments in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Case No. 17-1307, the United States Supreme Court held, in a 9-0 decision, that a business engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA, "the Act"), except for the limited prohibitions set forth in 1692(f)(6). The decision provides helpful guidance to law firms and loan servicers who pursue nonjudicial foreclosures. More ›

The Third Circuit Takes a More Expansive Approach to What Constitutes a Debt Collector under the FDCPA

On February 22, 2019, the Third Circuit in Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, issued a decision that expands the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) definition of the term "debt collector" to any entity that acquires debt for the purpose of collection, but outsources the actual debt collection activity. More ›

New York Mandates New Consumer Protections for Relatives of Deceased Debtors

Effective March 28, 2019, § 601-a of New York's General Business Law ("GBL 601-a") will provide additional consumer protections to relatives of deceased borrowers. Typically, when a debtor passes away, the obligations on their uncollected debts pass to the debtor's estate. This can result in confusion about whom debt collectors should contact and what they can say regarding the decedent's unpaid debt. GBL 601-a will require, among other things, that no representations are made to relatives of deceased debtors to the effect that they are obligated to pay the decedent's unpaid debt. More ›

SCOTUS to Decide Whether Non-Judicial Mortgage Foreclosures are Subject to the FDCPA

For mortgage servicers and foreclosure firms, yesterday's oral argument before the Supreme Court in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, U.S. Supreme Court, 17-1307 and the upcoming decision, could be a game changer. At issue: a split in the federal circuits over whether the non-judicial foreclosure of a mortgage constitutes debt collection, as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. More ›

Consumer Plaintiff Avila Sues Using the Safe Harbor Precedent She Established in Avila Decision—and Loses

Following the Second Circuit's 2016 decision in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates (Avila I), consumer plaintiff Annmarie Avila returned to court in Avila v. Reliant (Avila II) to sue for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) under the so called "safe-harbor" provision she helped establish in her previous successful appeal. More ›

Debt Collection Industry Achieves Important Federal Court Wins

In a recent client alert, Hinshaw's Consumer Financial Services team recounted a series of notable federal court decisions they secured on behalf of debt collector clients in recent months. These included multiple wins at the Third and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, as well federal districts in Florida and Illinois.

The decisions included affirmation of the need to stay within the scope and original intent of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a personal jurisdiction ruling in favor of an officer of a debt collection company, and expiration dates for settlement offers, along with a memorable win via a successful Rule 11 motion that sought attorneys' fees and costs due to bad faith actions by prolific and familiar plaintiff's counsel.

With the kind permission of Hinshaw's clients, the alert describes in detail seven of these decisions, several of which establish important new precedent favorable to the industry.

Read the alert on the Hinshaw website

Eighth Circuit Joins Five Other Circuits in Applying a Materiality Requirement to FDCPA Claims

In Hill v. Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, a consumer sued a collection agency for violations of § 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) on allegations that the collection agency's exhibits submitted in a state court action—which proved the assignment of the debt from the creditor—were false, misrepresented the legal status of the debt, and threatened actions the agency did not intend to take. The FDCPA action followed the state court's decision to grant judgment in favor of the consumer. The district court granted the collection agency's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the complained of actions were not material. The consumer appealed. More ›

Seventh Circuit Rules in Favor of a Debt Collector Regarding Steps to be taken in Compliance with the FDCPA and FCRA when a Debtor Disputes a Debt

Hinshaw obtained a significant ruling in the Seventh Circuit in Walton, which involved claims under both the FDCPA and the FCRA. The Defendant sent Deborah Walton a dunning letter, which stated she owed delinquent debt on an AT&T account. But the letter listed an invalid account number—the first three digits of the account number were transposed with the middle three digits. Walton called Defendant to dispute that the debt belonged to her, she acknowledged that her name and address were correct, but falsely denied that the last four digits of her social security number matched those given by the representative. Walton also sent a letter to Defendant asserting that she did "not own [sic] AT&T any money under the account number listed above." Defendant checked the information it had received from AT&T and sent Walton a letter reporting that, based on a records review, it had verified Walton's name, address, social security number, and the amount of the debt. Defendant also reported Walton's debt as disputed with two credit reporting agencies. Walton then disputed the debt to the credit reporting agencies, which triggered an ACDV[1] report to Defendant about Walton's dispute. The notice simply stated that the debt did not belong to her. More ›

Second Circuit Resolves Uncertainty Surrounding "Reverse Avila" Claims

The Court of Appeals seems to have halted much uncertainty surrounding "reverse Avila" claims by unanimously affirming the New York federal court's decision in Taylor v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., No. 17-1650, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS ------- (2d Cir. March 29, 2018) (found here). In the wake of Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016), savvy plaintiffs have argued that the failure to disclose that a debt is no longer accruing interest is false and misleading in violation of Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Second Circuit disagreed and held that "a collection notice that fails to disclose that interest and fees are not currently accruing on a debt is not misleading " when the letter correctly states a consumer's balance when the letter was issued.

Distinguishing Avila, the Second Circuit explained that the collection letter in Avila was misleading because a consumer could pay the full amount listed on the letter but such payment would not settle the debt. Under the facts of Avila, a consumer who paid the amount due on the collection letter would still be on the hook for an unpaid balance because interest and fees "accumulated after the notice was sent but before the balance was paid." In Taylor, the creditor instructed the collector not to accrue interest or fees on the underlying debt. Thus, because a consumer could have satisfied their debt by "making reasonably prompt payment" of the balance stated on the collection letter, it was not misleading notwithstanding the creditor's right to accrue post-placement interest on that same debt. The Second Circuit noted that the worst "harm" to plaintiffs in Taylor would be to pay sooner rather than later in order to avoid interest or fees accruing, but acceleration of payment "falls short of the obvious dangers facing consumers in Avila." More ›