Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “FDCPA”

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Consumer Baits Collector to Violate FDCPA, Files Suit

If I did not read this opinion I never would have believed it. In one of the greatest examples of baiting a collector into a violation of the FDCPA, a plaintiff in Missouri decided he was not going to wait for a collector to call him and instead called the collector himself to induce a 1692c(a)(2) violation. According to the opinion, “In mid-June 2014 plaintiff retained an attorney to represent him regarding his debts, including those which defendants are attempting to collect from him. Shortly after retaining legal counsel plaintiff phoned defendant MRG to ask about the debt and to inform…

‘Four-Second Review’ Decision Cited in Meaningful Involvement Class Action

Following on the heels of a June 30 decision finding that a New Jersey law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because its attorneys spent four seconds reviewing a pleading, a complaint seeking class certification has been filed against the same firm, citing findings of fact from the adverse court opinion. The complaint, filed in New Jersey state court last month, was removed to the federal District of New Jersey last week. The complaint is available here. The complaint focuses on a May 2014 settlement letter, which it alleges was not prepared by attorneys and was sent before an “attorney exercised professional judgment by…

En Banc Hearing Sought in FDCPA Case, Crawford v. LVNV

Last month’s 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that allowed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim to be made against a bankruptcy proof of claim filed on out-of-statute debt will get a rehearing if a petition filed by LVNV Funding, LLC is granted. An Outlier Decision Crawford caused a stir when it was issued a few weeks ago because it upset a well-settled body of law that prohibited such FDCPA claims. And although en banc requests are often denied, when a decision conflicts with an established body of law there is a better chance it will be granted. That may be what happens here.…

NJ Court Holds No FDCPA Violation for Filing Suit on Time-Barred Debt

Filing a lawsuit to collect a time-barred debt does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act according to a June 30 decision from a New Jersey state trial court. The decision, Midland Funding v. Thiel, involved a collection action to recover the unpaid balance of a Home Depot credit card. The law firm representing the creditor filed suit under New Jersey’s six-year limitation period for contracts, which has been applied to countless credit card debts. The trial court dismissed the claim reasoning that this particular credit card could only be used to make purchases at Home Depot. Four Year Limitations…

11th Circuit Holds Filing a Proof of Claim on Time-Barred Debt Violates FDCPA

Addressing what it termed “a deluge [that] has swept through U.S. bankruptcy courts of late” the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC  held that filing a proof of claim on time barred debt is conduct that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Background The last payment on the underlying debt was made in 2001 and subject to Alabama’s three year statute of limitations. The debtor filed for relief under the Bankruptcy Code in 2008 during which the current owner of the debt filed a proof of claim. Neither the debtor nor the Chapter…

FDCPA Decision Challenges Lawyers

New Jersey lawyers, who file lawsuits to collect debts, face significant risk of lawsuits themselves from the very persons they sue on behalf of their clients. A June 30 decision by a New Jersey federal district court found a law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because its attorneys did not spend sufficient time reviewing its pleadings or examining documents. Daniel Bock, Jr. allegedly had broken his promise to pay a debt and his creditor hired a New Jersey law firm to obtain payment. The firm sued to recover the debt and Bock soon after settled, paying…

FTC’s Recent Enforcement Action Sets New Debt Collection Standards

Auto lenders are in the cross-hairs of federal regulators. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently announced it is drafting a larger nonbank participant rule for auto lenders. In the meantime, the Federal Trade Commission announced yesterday the filing of a stipulated order imposing a civil monetary penalty and injunctive relief against a subprime auto lender. Big Penalty, Restitution, Restrictions The Federal Trade Commission announced yesterday that Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. will pay a civil monetary penalty of $5.5 million arising from its servicing and collection of consumer motor vehicle loans. In addition to the monetary penalty, the lender agreed to make certain changes to…

There’s Guidance in CFPB’s Supervisory Highlights Report

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s May 22 Supervisory Highlights report offers a rare glimpse into the CFPB’s thoughts on its first two years of supervision of nonbank entities, particularly debt buyers and debt collectors. Although the report contains several of the bureau’s standard talking points (data integrity in debts sales, for example) it does reveal new issues that have drawn the regulator’s attention and new guidance on pre-existing areas of concern. Compliance Management Systems It’s hard to believe, but according to the bureau some credit reporting agencies had no compliance management systems in place. Where it found a CMS, there were several instances uncovered where neither…

Court Finds Plaintiff’s FDCPA Complaint Filed in Bad Faith, Awards Fees

While there are many reported cases discussing attorney fee awards to successful plaintiffs under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, fee awards for defendants who had to endure bad faith complaints are few and far between.  Recently, one of these rare opinions surfaced in the Eastern District of Missouri in Nguyen v. Capital One Bank, (USA), N.A., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46716 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 4, 2014). The underlying putative class action complaint was filed in state court and removed by the defendants who then filed a motion to dismiss.  The District Court granted the unopposed motion to dismiss and…

Branded Credit Card Time Barred By Sale of Goods Limitations Period

The  New Jersey Appellate Division held in a surprising decision that a retail-branded credit card was time barred by its four year statute of limitations for the sale of goods. Trial Court Applied Six Year Statute A debt buyer filed a complaint in July 2012 to recover a defaulted store-branded credit card. The debtor counterclaimed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act arguing that the purchases she made with her card represented the sale of goods and since she defaulted in August of 2006, the debt buyer’s claim was time barred by New Jersey’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 2-725. The trial court…

CFPB Issues Report on Debt Collection – What Does it Reveal?

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a report today outlining its efforts and objectives in regulating, supervising and enforcing against debt collectors. The report is available here.  Past CFPB reports have provided guidance on where the bureau might be headed in its regulation, supervision and enforcement efforts. This year’s report is no different. It notes the growth of medical and student loan debt collection. Expect more focus on these sectors right away. In addition the report examines: consumer complaints the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission have received over the past year their enforcement activities the bureau’s supervision of debt collectors the bureau’s rulemaking,…

7th Circuit FDCPA Decision Sides with CFPB, FTC on Time Barred Debt

Earlier this week the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the consolidated appeals of McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC and Delgado v. Capital Management Services, L.P., concerning the collection of time barred debt without the threat of litigation. The result is not good for the credit and collections industry, principally because it further confuses application of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act across the nation. Background In both cases the debt collectors offered to settle the debts, without mention of a lawsuit or any legal action. Both suits claimed that the letters were false, deceptive and misleading, in violation…