Plaintiff Joseph Degroot defaulted on a credit card debt, which was subsequently placed with a collection agency. The agency sent the plaintiff a collection letter stating that “interest and fees are no longer being added to your account,” which the plaintiff took to mean that the account had been charged off. The debt was then
On October 5, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, holding that a letter which provides notice of a change in debt ownership and requests payments be remitted to the new owner qualifies as a communication related to a debt under the Fair
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) lawsuit finding Georgia’s six-month statute of limitations renewal statute did not apply to the FDCPA.
In Edwards v. Solomon & Solomon, Edwards filed a Complaint against Solomon and Solomon (“Solomon”), a third-party collection agency in
On September 4, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned summary judgment granted to a debt collector who had sent collection documents to the wrong person, ruling that it was not entitled to the bona fide error defense because it lacked procedures governing the factual mistake.
Chiari & Ilecki (“C&I”) attempted to collect a
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit because a debt collector’s failure to use the FDCPA’s precise language in its validation notice is not a violation of the FDCPA.
In Chaperon v. Sontag & Hyman, P.C., Chaperon alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and
A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Wisconsin provides an important reminder to loan servicers that a statement in a debt collection letter could be considered misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., even if the letter is “literally correct.”
The case is Reitz v.
The plaintiff incurred a debt to a medical provider who placed the debt with a debt collector. The collection letter from the debt collector included a request for repayment of principal and interest. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it was not
On August 12, 2020, Nicholas Brechun, Compliance Supervisor for the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“CFDCPA” or “the Act”), sent out notice of a stakeholder meeting to discuss amendments to the Act. The stakeholder meeting has been scheduled for August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
The proposed amendments are available in redline here.
In a recent decision out of the Middle District of Tennessee, 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. The issue on summary judgment was simple:
The Middle District of Pennsylvania recently held that including line items for interest and fees in a debt collection letter when no interest or fees are sought does not violate the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
In Reyes v. Associated Credit Servs., No. 1:19-CV-01670 (M.D. Pa. July 6, 2020), the plaintiff received a