Please join Consumer Financial Services Partner Stefanie Jackman and her guests and colleagues James Trefil and Jonathan Floyd in the fourth and final episode of a special four-part series on recent developments at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In this episode, topics include debt collection and convenience fees, trends in Regulation F litigation, and predictions

A recent federal district court opinion highlights the potential pitfalls associated with renewals of unsatisfied default judgments. The case, Sarah Pitera v. Asset Recovery Group Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00255-TL (W.D. Wash.), serves as a reminder that judgment creditors must still tread carefully when seeking to collect on, or revive, judgments from yesteryear. Read on for more

The standard courts should use to determine whether an alleged Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violation is material remains unsettled. According to a recent Tenth Circuit decision, however, the standard should be that of the “reasonable consumer,” not the “least sophisticated consumer.” In other words, “the inquiry is whether the reasonable consumer could

In Bacalzo v. Credit Control, LLC, No. 20-16904 (KMW/MJS) (D.N.J. June 7, 2022), the court granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector who included multiple contact addresses in a debt collection letter.

Defendant Credit Control LLC (Credit Control) sought to collect a credit card debt owed by plaintiff Linda Bacalzo. As part

In a much anticipated decision released September 8, an en banc panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision that a debt collector’s outsourcing of its letter process to a third-party mail vendor violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (FDCPA) prohibition on third-party disclosure and ruled that plaintiff Hunstein

In Louis v. Deshmukh, Civil Action No. 21-19902 (D.N.J. July 27, 2022), the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action, asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) based on statements made in the pleadings in an earlier state court litigation.

Plaintiff Cathelene Louis incurred a

When mortgage servicers use periodic statements sent under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to collect a debt, they can be held liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for any misleading or unconscionable representations made in those statements. Applying this reasoning, the Eleventh Circuit recently overturned a dismissal of a FDCPA case

In Palacio v. Med. Fin. Sols., No. 21 CV 1288 (N.D. Ill. June 14, 2022), the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that it did not qualify as a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act (FDCPA).

Defendant Medical Financial Solutions (Medical Financial) works with medical care

Please join Consumer Financial Services Partner Chris Willis and his guests and colleagues Stefanie Jackman and Sarah Reise as they discuss the intersection of fair lending with collections. They cover which types of third-party debt collection processes could be subject to a fair lending review, the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact, how the

“Convenience” fees charged to consumers for the use of certain debt payment options have come under increased scrutiny, as regulators have sought to limit charges and other back-end fees that may come as a surprise to consumers. Also known as “pay-to-pay” fees, such convenience charges are typically imposed by debt collectors and/or loan servicers where