On March 22, 2018, the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment to a collection agency in a “current account balance” case. Specifically, the Court found no violation of the FDCPA because in its letter the debt collector did not have to notify the consumer that her balance may increase and the creditor was
On March 29, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a long-awaited opinion in what is commonly called a “reverse-Avila” or “current account balance” case, holding that it is not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) for a debt collector to state a consumer’s
On February 16, a judge in the Eastern District of New York denied a defendant collection law firm’s motion to dismiss, finding that its collection letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not clearly set out that interest and fees may accrue on the “current balance.”
A district court in Maryland has ruled that a debt collection agency did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (“FDCPA”)’s mini-Miranda requirement by failing to disclose its identity in a call initiated by the plaintiff in response to a debt collection letter.
Background
Consumer plaintiff Rhonda Price-Richardson defaulted on
In a new article detailing its Stats for December 2017 and Year in Review, WebRecon presented data showing a slight decrease in the number of consumer litigation lawsuits filed in 2017 compared to other years. We previously reported on WebRecon’s consumer litigation statistics for May of 2017, where we found the number of new
On February 12, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion in which it found that a debt collector’s inclusion of the word “settlement” in a collection letter for a statutorily time-barred debt suggested to the least sophisticated debtor the debt was still legally enforceable could therefore constitute potential violation of the Fair
The Sixth Circuit dismissed a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against an attorney for lack of standing because the letter sent by the debt collector could not have caused the plaintiff a cognizable injury.
In 2010, consumer plaintiffs James and Patricia Hagy defaulted on the loan payments for their mobile home, and
In addition to the hotly litigated mandatory disclosure of the “amount of the debt,” the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also requires a seemingly straightforward statement of “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed” as set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2). However, even this requirement has given rise to a
On January 31, a New Jersey District Court judge found that including a toll-free telephone number in an initial validation letter sent by a collection agency did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and therefore granted a debt collector’s Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss.
In Riccio v. Sentry Credit, consumer plaintiff
On November 8, the Eastern District of New York rendered an opinion granting Credit Control Services’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Yendy Cruz’s claim. Specifically, the Court found Credit Control’s collection letter was not false or misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because Credit Control was not including either interest or fees on its