Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published by “Eric Rosenkoetter”

Eric Rosenkoetter is a principal at Maurice Wutscher LLP, where he provides counsel to businesses and consumer financial services firms nationwide. For many years, he has focused his practice on various aspects of financial services law. As a litigation attorney, he has conducted every aspect of the litigation process, including countless depositions, motion proceedings, bench and jury trials, and appeals in various courts. In addition, he has significant experience as a compliance and transactional attorney, providing strategic, business growth, legislative, compliance and regulatory advice to national corporations and trade associations. For example, he has drafted consumer contracts and disclosures designed to state-specific statutory requirements, and developed “Best Practices” guides and state-by-state compliance grids, for national financial services companies. He also conducted research and crafted a metrics report for a national trade association with analysis designed to counter the claims of advocacy groups. Eric’s experience also includes working for a national corporation as Executive Counsel, Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer, and Director of Legislative Affairs, and as a federal lobbyist and Director of Government and Public Affairs for a national financial services trade association. In the government sector, Eric presided over approximately 6,000 state administrative hearings, served as a staff attorney for the Missouri Senate, and handled litigation in 33 counties as a regional managing attorney. Eric frequently speaks to audiences on topics relevant to the financial services industry including regulatory compliance, data privacy law and related advocacy initiatives. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/eric-rosenkoetter/

5th Cir. Holds Tax Buyers Not Subject to TILA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a transfer of a tax lien to a tax buyer under Texas law does not constitute an extension of credit that is subject to the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). A copy of the opinion in Billings v. Propel Financial Services, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion. In four consolidated cases, the plaintiffs were individuals who agreed to have the defendant property tax buyers pay their real estate taxes in exchange for the transfer of their tax liens pursuant to Sections 32.06 and 32.065 of the Texas…

Supreme Court Holds Law Firms’ Use of AG Letterhead Does Not Raise ‘Specter of Consumer Confusion’

In a unanimous decision yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that attorneys retained as independent contractors by the Ohio Attorney General to collect debts owed to the state do not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when sending collection letters on Attorney General letterhead. In so ruling, the Court noted that the FDCPA “bars debt collectors from deceiving or misleading consumers; it does not protect consumers from fearing the actual consequences of their debts.” Authored by Justice Ginsburg, a copy of the opinion in Sheriff v. Gillie is available here: Link to Opinion. Under Ohio law, debts owed…

Rhode Island ‘Expired Debt Act’ More Than Name Implies

On Jan. 7, the Expired Debt Act (EDA) was introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.  The bill was introduced by State Representatives Shekarchi, Solomon, Regunberg, McEntee, and Craven. Since 2007, Rhode Island has had its own Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RIFDCPA) that is, for the most part, identical to its federal counterpart.  The EDA, however, introduces new definitions and restrictions related to debt collection. The EDA defines a “collector” as “a person collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt arising out of a consumer transaction.”  The definition is…

Illinois Enacts Legislative Fix to Collection Agency Act

On Jan. 29, 2016, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law SB 1369 that provides welcomed corrections to the Illinois Collection Agency Act that was amended in 2015 by HB 3332. In a previous CFS blog, we described the proposed changes in SB 1369 that would rewind some of the unintended consequences wrought by HB 3332. The Illinois Legislature should be commended for its quick turnaround in implementing this fix, which became effective upon the Governor’s signature.    

Massachusetts Collection Law Firms Are Now ‘Debt Collectors’

In an Opinion Letter letter dated Nov. 2, the Massachusetts Division of Banks declared that collection law firms in Massachusetts are required to obtain a debt collector license pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 92, § 24 et. seq. The Opinion Letter was in response to correspondence from a Massachusetts collection law firm inquiring whether the firm, self-described as “overwhelmingly concentrated in the area of consumer debt collection on behalf of its clients,” was required to be licensed.  At issue was the applicability of the licensing exclusion for “attorneys-at-law collecting a debt on behalf of a client.”  In its Opinion,…

Pennsylvania Bill Would Drastically Limit Telephone Calls to Debtors

On Nov. 20, Pennsylvania Senators Greenleaf, Tartaglione, Rafferty and Pileggi introduced SB 1072, which was referred to the Consumer Protection & Professional Licensure Committee.  The legislation, if enacted, would the limit the number of telephone communications that a creditor or debt collector may have with a debtor to three, total. The legislation amends the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act by adding the following as an unfair act or deceptive practice: (b.1) Limitation on telephone contacts with consumers. (1) It shall constitute an unfair or deceptive debt collection act or practice under this act if a debt collector or creditor…

Illinois Bill Provides Welcome Fix to Illinois Collection Agency Act

A recent Illinois bill provides a welcome fix to the Illinois Collection Agency Act (ICAA). The legislation, SB 1369, corrects amendments made to the ICAA this past August.  Those amendments potentially expanded sections of the ICAA to commercial debt and would require disclosures contrary to (and possibly in violation of) the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The corrective legislation: Amends section 9.1 (Communication with persons other than debtor) to provide that when seeking location information from third parties, collection agencies and debt buyers must provide the name of their employer “only if expressly requested” Amends section 9.3 (Debt validation) to provide that a…

U.S. Senator Introduces ‘Stop Debt Collection Abuse Act of 2015’

Bill targets collectors seeking repayment of government debt and debt buyers On Nov. 5, U.S. Senator Cory Booker introduced S. 2255, the “Stop Debt Collection Abuse Act of 2015.”  Though primarily targeted toward debt collectors collecting on obligations owed to the federal government, the bill also brings debt buyers into the FDCPA definition of “debt collector.”  The bill has been assigned to the Senate Banking Committee. Regarding private debt collectors under contract with the federal government: The definition of “debt” (15 USC 1692a(5)) is expanded to include “any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer (i) to pay a loan,…

New Jersey Bill Requires ‘Good Faith’ Identity Theft Determinations

A New Jersey Senate bill introduced in 2014 relating to debt collectors’ responsibilities upon receipt of notice of identity theft or misidentification crossed over to the Assembly this week. S1344 received unanimous support in the Senate Commerce Committee, with amendments, and passed from the Senate on third reading by a vote of 32-0. The bill adopts the FDCPA’s definition of “debt,” but strays in its definition of “debt collector” which includes, in part, “any person who by any direct or indirect action, conduct, or practice, collects or attempts to collect a debt that is owed or due or asserted to…

Massachusetts Legislature Mulls Harmful Consumer Debt Collection Bill

Proposed legislation to enact Massachusetts’ Family Financial Protection Act (S. 146 – H. 804)  was considered during a hearing before the Joint Financial Services Committee on Oct. 27. The legislation, in part, defines active and passive debt buyers as “debt collectors.” It also places limits on garnishable wages, establishes a three-year statute of limitations, prohibits revival upon payment, and places limits on a successful plaintiff’s award of interest and attorney’s fees. The legislation contains the following: “Debt Buyer” means a person or entity that purchases delinquent or charged-off consumer loans or consumer credit accounts, or other delinquent consumer debt for collection purposes, whether it collects the debt itself or hires a…