Menu

Showing 3 posts from June 2019.

FCC’s Robocall Ruling Raises Industry Concerns of Erroneous Blocking of Their Lawful Calls

While most Americans might breathe a sigh of relief upon learning of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) June 6, 2019 5-0 bipartisan vote authorizing phone companies to automatically identify and block unwanted robocalls, shielding us from those annoying voices describing the expiration of our car’s warranty, spoof numbers claiming fake tax bills, and the like, various trade groups have voiced concerns including the American Bankers Association, the American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management, the Credit Union National Association, the National Retail Federation, and the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals. Chief among concerns for these groups is that the call blocking may not distinguish illegal telemarketing and scams from legitimate calls placed once a subscriber consents, as well as a lack of clear redress for any erroneous blocking. More ›

Seventh Circuit Awards Legal Costs and Implements a Major Reduction in Plaintiff's Requested Attorneys' Fees in a FCRA and FDCPA Claim

In Paz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, a debtor sued for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Within a month of filing suit, the creditor invoked Rule 68 in making a formal offer to settle, and subsequently made two additional Rule 68 offers of judgment. The debtor never responded to these settlement offers, and later rejected a final offer to settle all claims, costs and attorneys' fees for $25,000. At trial, the debtor prevailed on both of his claims, but because the jury determined he had sustained no actual damages, his total recovery was limited to $1,000 in statutory damages. More ›

A Reminder for Borrowers: Post-Discharge Communications by Creditor Must Coerce or Harass in Order to Violate Bankruptcy Law

In Kirby v. 21 Mortg. Corp., the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel examined the Kirbys' claim that the 19 written communications they received from their mortgage holder following their Chapter 7 discharge violated the Bankruptcy Code 524(a)(2)'s injunction. The Kirbys further claimed bankruptcy discharge violations arising from their mortgage holder's delivery of an escrow account disclosure, short sale letter, cash-for-keys letter, and right to cure notice for a total of 26 post-discharge bankruptcy communications. Below, we take a closer look at the decision and its comprehensive review of bankruptcy discharge law along with the process for determining whether a post-discharge correspondence violates the bankruptcy code's injunction. More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email