Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published by “Jacob C. VanAusdall”

Jake VanAusdall is Senior Counsel in the Nashville office of Maurice Wutscher LLP. He practices in the firm’s Consumer Credit Litigation and Commercial Litigation groups predominantly representing financial institutions. Jake also has substantial litigation experience representing clients involved in intellectual property, construction, contract, and business disputes. Jake has been recognized as a “Mid-South Super Lawyers – Rising Star” in the area of Business Litigation (2018-2022), and is a former member of the Tennessee John Marshall American Inn of Court. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/jacob-vanausdall/

8th Cir. Rejects Conversion Claims by Decedent’s Estate Against Bank for Lack of Standing

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several conversion claims brought by the estate of a deceased account holder against a bank, holding that one of the conversion claims was time-barred, and that the estate did not have standing to pursue the remaining conversion claims as the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the bank.

7th Cir. Rules Dispute Sent Through Wrong Channel Gave Rise to Valid FDCPA ‘Bona Fide’ Error Defense

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a debt collector asserting a bona fide error defense to an action under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Defects in Summons Allowed Borrower to Vacate Two Different Foreclosure Judgments

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that a trial court should not have rejected a borrower's attempt to vacate two different foreclosure judgments against him on the grounds of defects in service of process in those actions.

Calif. App. Court (4th Dist) Reverses Dismissal, Holds Rosenthal Act Covers Debts ‘Alleged to be Due and Owing’

The Court of Appeal of California (Fourth District) recently reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging a solar energy system provider violated the Rosenthal Act, California’s parallel version of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

7th Cir. Holds Hiring Attorney, Paying Appearance Fee, Emotional Distress Not Enough for Article III Standing

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a debtor’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for lack of Article III standing. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that the debtor’s hiring an attorney and paying an appearance fee, as well as alleged confusion, lost sleep, and emotional distress, were not sufficient to meet the requirements of standing.

8th Cir. Affirms Use of Borrower’s Proposed Rate for Payments in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy

In an appeal involving a Chapter 12 bankruptcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed that the borrower’s use of the 20-year treasury bond rate sufficiently ensured that the total present value of future payments to the lender over the plan period equaled or exceeded the allowed value of the claim.

9th Cir. Holds Phone ‘Subscriber’ Who Was Not the Phone’s User Had Article III Standing to Assert TCPA Claim

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the owner and subscriber of a phone number listed on the Do Not Call Registry suffered an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing when unwanted text messages were sent to the number in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even when the owner and subscriber was not the actual user of the phone.

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Rejects Borrower’s Arguments That Breach of Forbearance Agreement Was Not ‘Material’

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently rejected a borrower's arguments that his breach of a forbearance agreement was immaterial, and that the lender was attempting to use the breach for an improper purpose by attempting to recover substantially more than the amount to which it was allegedly entitled.