Showing 49 posts in Debt Collection.

California Appellate Court Permits Debt Collection Suit against Mortgage Loan Servicer

March 28, 2018 by Peter L. Isola

Acknowledging a split of authority among the many federal courts reviewing whether a mortgage loan servicer falls within the FDCPA's definition of a "debt collector," one California appellate court has revived a putative class action dismissed at the trial court through which borrowers pursued fair debt claims under the Rosenthal Act. The decision issued in Davidson v. Seterus is significant because borrowers could not pursue these claims under the more restrictive FDCPA. More ›

Maine Ups the Ante on Debt Collection Licensing

February 16, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The State of Maine recently enacted legislation that greatly expands those entities required to obtain a debt collection license. Previously, a debt collector needed to obtain a license if it was attempting to collect a debt incurred by a Maine resident to a Maine creditor. A debt collector also needed a license if it engaged in the "face-to-face" solicitation of creditor clients in Maine. These conditions have now been expanded. More ›

Read Before You Leap: Providing Telephone Number To Communicate With Collector Does Not Overshadow Validation Rights

February 13, 2018 by Concepcion A. Montoya

The New Jersey federal court has rejected a claim that providing a debtor with a telephone number and other options to communicate with a collector does not overshadow required language that the debtor must dispute the debt in writing within thirty days. The court found that the validation language concerning a consumer's right to dispute the debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) must be construed by considering as a whole the letter to the debtor. More ›

Hinshaw's Dave Schultz Addresses Massachusetts Supreme Court in Debt Collection Licensing Dispute

January 24, 2018 by Hinshaw

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently heard oral argument about whether a passive debt buyer is required to be licensed. An active and engaged panel questioned the attorneys on the issues, earlier this month. The debt buyer defendant was represented in oral argument by Hinshaw partner David Schultz. More ›

New Jersey Federal Judge Dismisses RICO suit against FDCPA Plaintiff Law Firms

January 16, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Late last year, a debt collection agency went on the offensive and filed a RICO lawsuit against three FDCPA Plaintiff Law Firms, alleging that the Plaintiff Firms filed frivolous class action lawsuits under the FDCPA as a way to generate a quick settlement from them. Last week, Judge Michael Vazquez, in a sometimes scathing opinion, dismissed the suit, siding with the Plaintiff Firms. Judge Vazquez ultimately concluded that the filing of numerous class action lawsuits violates no laws, but is actually "standard practice." He found that the Amended Complaint was both factually and legally deficient, and the allegations that the Plaintiff Firms engaged in frivolous litigation were baseless. Moreover, Judge Vazquez concluded that filing litigation cannot form a basis for mail or wire fraud under RICO.  More ›

Invoking Bigfoot, the Eastern District of New York Highlights the Absurdity of New FDCPA Theories

December 22, 2017 by Han Sheng Beh

Suggesting that the latest FDCPA plaintiff's theories in New York have morphed into something other than consumer protection, Judge Glasser of the Eastern District of New York ("EDNY") penned an extensive (and rather scathing) decision detailing the abuse by plaintiffs-consumers (or more precisely, their counsel) in filing lawsuits for non-existent harms. More ›

Northern District of New York Dismisses another Avila Claim Based on Accrual of New York Pre-Judgment Interest

December 21, 2017 by Han Sheng Beh

One of the latest trends in the New York FDCPA space has been filing so called "Reverse Avila" cases, based on the Second Circuit's decision in Avila v. Riexinger and Assocs.. In Avila, the Second Circuit found that a debt collection letter violated the FDCPA because the letter failed to state that interest on the debt was accruing. Since Avila, new theories related to the accrual of interest claims have surfaced, including: (1) the "Reverse Avila" claim, and (2) claims requiring Avila safe harbor language in correspondence if there is any possibility (however small) that interest will accrue in the future--even if the debt was not actually increasing at the time of the correspondence. Courts have begun to deny these claims because they stretch the meaning of Avila into the realm of pure speculation. More ›

Bill Introduced in Congress to Exclude Attorneys and Law Firms from the FDCPA's Definition of "Debt Collector"

December 6, 2017 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Yesterday, December 5, 2017, Texas Democrat Vincente Gonzalez introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s definition of a "debt collector." The Bill also seeks to amend the supervisory and enforcement authority that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has with respect to attorneys. More ›

New York Federal Court Demands that FDCPA Plaintiffs Read Entire Debt Collection Letter to Determine Creditor's Identity

November 30, 2017 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In Goldstein v. Diversified Adjustment Serv., the Eastern District of New York may have walked back one of the new favorite Fair Debt Collection Practices Act  (the "FDCPA") claims—namely that the creditor was not properly identified pursuant to § 1692g of the FDCPA. Although the debt collection letter at issue listed Sprint several times, Goldstein's complaint nonetheless alleged that the debt collection letter violated the FDCPA by failing to adequately identify to whom the debt was owed and what Sprint's role was. More ›

Overshadowed and Contradicted: Third Circuit Rules Second Demand Letter Violated FDCPA's "Validation Notice" Requirement

September 21, 2017 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently reiterated how a debt collector may run afoul of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending a misleading follow-up, even if it served a compliant demand letter weeks earlier. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives