Despite two controlling decisions by the Second Circuit in Avila and Taylor, claims involving the “amount of debt” disclosure under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) continue to evolve thanks to the relentless efforts by the New York plaintiffs’ bar. But these permutations of the “amount of debt” claims continue to be successfully
On October 17, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the CFPB’s fall 2018 rulemaking agenda. In the preamble to the agenda, the CFPB notes that the agenda lists the regulatory matters that the agency “reasonably anticipates having under consideration during the period from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019.”
Implementing Statutory
On July 4, 2017, W. Va. Code § 46A-5-108 went into effect, requiring West Virginia consumers to send a written “Notice of Right to Cure” to a creditor or debt collector prior to instituting any action under Articles 2, 3, or 4 of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (the WVCCPA).
Currently, some courts allow borrowers to bring Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims for non-judicial foreclosures while other courts do not, but that is about to change. On June 28, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of Dennis Obduskey, a Colorado borrower arguing that the FDCPA should apply to non-judicial foreclosures.
In a case of first impression, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held that direct-to-voicemail messages qualify as a “call” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court’s opinion thus subjects another modern technology to the requirements of express consent and other strictures of the TCPA.
Defendant debt collector Dyck-O’Neal,
A recent Virginia Supreme Court decision, The Game Place, L.L.C. v. Fredericksburg 35, LLC, 813 S.E.2d 312 (Va. 2018), highlights the long-standing statutory requirement for using a deed of lease, affixing a corporate seal, or utilizing acceptable seal substitutes in long-term leases. In Game Place, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that a
On June 6, the Consumer Advisory Board’s twenty-two members were informed that they would no longer serve on the CAB and could not reapply for their former positions.
Through June 5, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had four advisory bodies: the Academic Research Council, the Community Bank Advisory Council, the Credit Union Advisory Council, and
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (“RMS”), a leading servicer of home equity conversion mortgages, commonly known as reverse mortgages, recently received a complete defense verdict in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, in a trial presided over by Judge Irene Berger. The case arose out of a reverse mortgage entered
On May 31, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a $150,000 sanctions award against three consumer attorneys and their law firms for bad faith conduct and misrepresentations.
The opinion reads like a detective story and lays out, in the Court’s own words, “a mosaic of half-truths, inconsistencies, mischaracterizations, exaggerations, omissions, evasions, and failures to
In Echlin v. PeaceHealth, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collection agency meaningfully participated in collection efforts even if it did not have authority to settle the account, did not receive payments, and was not involved in collection beyond sending two collection letters. Accordingly, the collection agency