Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Debt Collection”

5th Cir. Holds FDCPA Plaintiff Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Following Settlement

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s denial of an award of attorney’s fees to a debtor who settled his claims against a debt collector for purported violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and parallel state law consumer protection statutes.

8th Cir. Holds No FDCPA Violation When Debt Collector Failed To Meet Its Evidentiary Burden in Collection Lawsuits

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in consolidated cases brought under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against a debt collector law firm, after the debt collector law firm failed to meet evidentiary burdens in various collection lawsuits.

9th Cir. Holds FDCPA ‘Bona Fide Error’ Defense Can Be Raised in ‘Out of Statute’ (Time-Barred) Debt Cases

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s dismissal of allegations that the defendant violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending a collection letter threatening litigation over a time-barred or "out-of-statute" debt and filing a lawsuit seeking to collect the debt.

3rd Cir. Holds No FDCPA Violation When Debt Collector Invited Phone Calls to ‘Eliminate Further Collection Action’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a consumer a collection letter inviting her to “eliminate further collection action” by calling the company, when in fact only written communication could legally stop collection activity.

7th Cir. Holds Insurer Had No Duty to Defend FDCPA, TCPA, and Related Common Law Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s judgment that an insurer had no duty to defend a debt collector in an action brought by a consumer asserting claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as common law claims of defamation and invasion of privacy.

Florida’s Workers’ Comp Law Is Disrupting Medical Debt Collection – What Hospitals, Medical Providers and Debt Collectors Need To Know

The State of Florida, like many states, maintains a robust workers’ compensation statute geared toward insulating employees injured on the job from associated medical services. Now, lawsuits continue to be filed against debt collectors, hospitals and other medical providers alleging that under a novel interpretation of Florida’s workers’ compensation law, it is unlawful to attempt to collect medical debt arising from work-related injuries directly from consumers.

5th Cir. Holds Call That Did Not Mention Debt Not FDCPA ‘Communication’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a debtor’s claims against a debt collector alleging that a telephone call placed to his sister constituted an improper third-party communication in connection with the collection of a debt, in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  

Fla. Supreme Court Holds Consumers May Recover Attorney’s Fees in ‘Account Stated’ and ‘Foreclosure Standing’ Cases

The Florida Supreme Court recently resolved a split in Florida law on the issue of attorney’s fees in favor of consumers, holding that debtors who prevail when a creditor sues under an account stated cause of action instead of for breach of the underlying credit card agreement are entitled to recover attorney’s fees under the so-called “reciprocity provision” of subsection 57.105(7), Florida Statutes.

7th Cir. Requires Evidentiary Hearing for Factual Disputes as to Standing

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently vacated a trial court’s judgment of dismissal and remanded with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing limited to the issue of whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim that a dunning letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not clearly state that interest would accrue on the debt.