The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a consumer’s contractual obligation to repay an overpayment in government grant money received by the debtor qualified as a “debt” under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it involved a consensual promise to repay in exchange for receipt of an item of value, and the subject of the transaction was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
The COVID-19 pandemic has turned nearly every facet of American life on its head, and the long-term social changes it will bring about remain up in the air. Even after the economy recovers from the disease’s current impact, many employers could permanently enact far-reaching changes to how — and where — people work. As more employers discover that employees can adequately perform their duties remotely, they may reevaluate the need for expensive office space, which could lead to increased Chapter 11 filings by the owners of office buildings, office parks, and single-asset real estate debtors.
On Sept. 9, 2020, California Assembly Bill 1885 was enacted, significantly increasing the amount of California’s homestead exemption. The amendment becomes effective Jan. 1, 2021.
In a case of first impression for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Court joined the Sixth Circuit in holding that obtaining a consumer report to verify a consumer’s identity and eligibility for a service is a “legitimate business need” and therefore a “permissible purpose” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
The Massachusetts Superior Court, Business Litigation Session, recently denied a broker-dealer’s motion to vacate a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration award requiring it to pay attorneys’ fees to its former employees, holding that the parties’ mutual request for attorneys’ fees in an arbitration can provide the requisite legal basis for an award of attorneys’ fees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) where it unintentionally sent a valid debt collection communication to a non-debtor.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss filed by a federal student loan lender and servicer against claims raised by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alleging violations of federal and state consumer protection laws after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed suit raising similar claims.
In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a mortgage lender’s reliance upon the borrower’s representations concerning the amount of his future spousal support and rental income without proper verifiable documentation were insufficient to satisfy the “ability to repay” income verification requirements arising under the federal Truth in Lending Act and its implementing regulation (“Regulation Z”).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that six Delaware asset securitization trusts could appoint an additional servicer to collect loans in default, but violated the trust documents by transferring to the beneficial owners powers reserved for the trustee.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the city of Oakland’s amended complaint alleging unlawful discriminatory lending practices against a national bank and its parent holding company sufficiently stated a claim that its decreased property tax revenues, but not its increased municipal expenses, were proximately caused by the alleged predatory lending practices.
The Texas Supreme Court recently held that a claim made by a bankruptcy trustee did not fall within a special warranty clause that limited the grantor’s liability to claims asserted by individuals "by, through and under" the grantor.
In an action challenging the accessibility of a website to blind and visually impaired people, the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, recently held that a California court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a Georgia LLC where the LLC purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in California by sending catalogs and selling over $300,000 worth of goods to California residents.