As discussed here, in August 2020, a district court for the Middle District of Tennessee held that a medical provider’s third-party billing servicer did not qualify as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) because the debt was not in default when it was placed with the extended billing office
A district court in the Northern District of California recently denied in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and California’s Rosenthal Act involving collection texts sent to a consumer.
On February 13, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of an Eastern District of New York court and found that the defendant law firm, Mandarich Law Group, LLC (Mandarich), had conducted a meaningful attorney review of the plaintiff debtor’s account prior to mailing her a debt collection letter on the firm’s letterhead.
After lengthy discovery and litigation, a U.S. district court judge in the Western District of New York ended a class action lawsuit by holding that communications between attorneys are not actionable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
In (Fein Such), the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that Fein Such made improper
According to the district court for the District of Massachusetts, debt collectors may be found in violation of § 1692g(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when sending debt collection letters requiring the consumer to dispute the debt in writing.
As background, in Sherwyn Rocke v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. (Monarch), the
As discussed here, on September 8, 2022, 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 prohibition on third-party disclosure. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes a debtor from discharging a debt obtained by fraud, regardless of the debtor’s own culpability. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, issued February 22, the Court concluded that “§ 523(a)(2)(A) turns on how the money was obtained, not who committed
On January 19, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an order sanctioning a collections law firm for violating the bankruptcy discharge injunction. The court in Skaggs v. Gooch (In re Skaggs) awarded the debtor $25,000 in attorneys’ fees based on a letter he received concerning a discharged
On January 9, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own 39-year-old precedent to find that: (1) the definition of “transfer” for purposes of section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code depends on federal, not state, law; and (2) the date of “transfer” is the time at which the money passes to the creditor’s control.
At a high
In a recent decision, a Michigan district court found that because there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendant debt collector notified the consumer reporting agency (CRA) to remove a disputed debt notification from the plaintiff’s tradeline, the case could proceed to trial.