In a putative class action of borrowers who received mortgage statements after a bankruptcy discharge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed a trial court order denying certification for failure to establish predominance. In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that a mortgage servicer’s affirmative defense that it is not liable under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), Fla. Stat. § 559.55 et seq., because the only remedy for violating a discharge injunction is under the Bankruptcy Code requires no…
Posts published in “FDCPA”
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that a debt collector violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when the envelope it sent to a debtor displayed an unencrypted code that revealed the debtor’s account number when scanned. A copy of the opinion in DiNaples v. MRS BPO, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. A consumer defaulted on her credit card and the bank that issued it assigned the account to a debt collection agency. The debt collector sent the consumer “a collection letter as a pressure-sealed envelope that had a QR [or…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed judgment in favor of two debt collectors and against a debtor for his claims arising under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA). In so ruling, the Court held that the debtor did not create a triable issue of material fact to overcome summary judgment because he failed to present sufficient evidence that the transactions comprising the credit card debt on the underlying account were for “personal, family, or household purposes,” and therefore that the debt was a “consumer debt” subject to…
Lavallee v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit examines whether an email from a debt collector was an “initial communication” and if it was, whether a clickable hyperlink serves as a proper means of providing the validation notice mandated by section 1692g(a) of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. These disclosures, sometimes called the “validation notice,” can be contained in what the FDCPA refers to as the “initial communication” or provided “in writing” within five days of the initial communication. While the debt collector was found to have violated the FDCPA, the decision…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act holding that an FDCPA violation occurs, for the purposes of the FDCPA’s one year statute of limitations, when an individual is injured by the alleged unlawful conduct. In so ruling, the Second Circuit clarified that in Benzemann v. Citibank N.A., 806 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2015), it did not intend to expand the FDCPA’s statute of limitations by requiring individuals to be injured and receive “notice of the FDCPA violation.” A copy of the opinion in Benzemann…
Distinguishing contrary rulings from the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s percentage fee was recoverable under the language of a contract that required the consumer to pay “any costs (including reasonable attorney’s fees) incurred by [the creditor] in attempting to collect amounts due.” A copy of the opinion in Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. A consumer bought a monthly pass to Six Flags amusement parks. The contract stated that if the buyer failed to make the required monthly payments, he would…
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has announced it will allow more time for comments on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CFPB has extended the comment period by 30 days to Sept. 18. Years in the making, if adopted the proposed rules would bring significant changes to the form and manner of consumer debt collection subject to the FDCPA. According to the CFPB, its proposal “would set clear, bright-line limits on the number of calls debt collectors may place to reach consumers on a weekly basis; apply prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false…
In an unreported opinion, the Court of Appeal for the First District of California recently held that a debt collector that violated the minimum type-size requirement for collection letters under Cal. Civil Code § 1812.701(b) may utilize the procedure for curing violations under California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to correct its violations. However, the Appellate Court reversed the dismissal because the trial court should have allowed the consumer to amend the complaint or locate a suitable class representative after granting summary judgment in favor of the debt collector on her individual claim. In so ruling, the Court also…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a debtor lacked Article III standing to sue a debt collector for failing to notify her in its debt validation letter that to trigger the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s protections she had to communicate a dispute in writing because the only harm she suffered was receiving the incomplete letter. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit created a circuit split on this issue as in Macy v. GC Services Limited Partnership, 897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018), where the Sixth Circuit held under…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed two trial court rulings in favor of a debt collector and against the debtors holding that correspondence which identified “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed” as the original creditor instead of the current creditor did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it accurately disclosed the only creditor to whom the debtors owed their debt sufficient for the unsophisticated consumer to understand. A copy of the opinion in Smith v. Simm Associates, Inc. is available at: Link to Opinion. In both cases, a…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it reduced the plaintiff’s counsel’s $187,410 fee claim to $10,875 after the debtor recovered only a $1,000 statutory damages award on his federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim at trial and the debt collector had issued a Rule 68 offer of judgment early in the case that exceeded the amount the debtor recovered. A copy of the opinion in Paz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. After a debt collector purchased a debtor’s…
The Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District affirmed the dismissal of a borrower’s alleged putative class action alleging that the successor to a credit card issuer violated various state and federal laws when it filed suit to collect the debt past the four-year statute of limitations for the sale of goods under the Illinois version of the UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-725). In so ruling, the Appellate Court held that the issuer properly filed suit within the five-year statute of limitations that applies to credit card agreements under 735 ILCS 5/13-205. In addition, the Appellate Court ruled that advancing money to pay…