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
On November 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled that a law firm did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it stated in its collection letter that the “amount due” was $5,794.54 but failed to indicate that this amount could increase due to interest assessed pursuant
A federal district court in Connecticut recently ruled that a debt collector’s 29 telephone calls to a debtor’s home telephone over a period of 24 days was sufficient to establish a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In denying in part the defendant debt collector’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Jeffrey
On October 31, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York held that a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to disclose whether interest and fees may accrue on an account. Specifically, the Court denied a debt collector’s summary judgment motion, stating that a collection letter
A federal judge in New Jersey denied a debt collector’s motion to reconsider the Court’s award of summary judgment to a plaintiff for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In granting summary judgment, the Court applied the “substantial attorney review” standard to a collection complaint filed in state court. The case is Daniel
A federal judge in Utah has ruled that a debt collector may rely on the “bona fide error” defense to defeat a claim for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. Analyzing the compliance procedures that the debt collector had in place, the Court granted summary judgment for