
Showing 4 posts by Barbara Fernandez.
Congress Takes a Significant Step Towards Replacing Dodd-Frank and Gutting the CFPB
On Thursday, as we anticipated in a previous blog post, the House of Representatives voted along party lines to pass the Financial CHOICE ACT ("FCA"), which would repeal Dodd-Frank and strip the CFPB of its authority.
The debate leading up to the vote also appeared to divide sharply along partisan lines, with Republicans urging their colleagues to vote for the Bill, and Democrats insisting that it was the "Wrong Choice" for Americans. Despite their differing opinions, representatives from all parties appeared to articulate the same goal: putting Main Street America ahead of Wall Street.
Supporters of the FCA contend that the purported benefits of Dodd-Frank have never materialized. They argue that due to Dodd-Frank’s excessive and expensive regulatory burdens, small banks and businesses have failed, while big banks have continued to thrive. Imposing the same regulations on every financial institution, they say, has strangled small community banks, and forced many to shut down. This problem triggered another major concern of the bill's supporters, namely an alleged lack of choice of financial products and the increased cost of these same products. More ›
Supreme Court Watch: Debt Collector Filing Bankruptcy Proof of Claim for Time-Barred Debt Avoids FDCPA Liability
What does the United States Supreme Court's decision issued earlier this week in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson mean for debt collectors? It means that debt collectors may file proofs of claim in a debtor's bankruptcy on time-barred debt without risk of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In Johnson, a debt collector filed a proof of claim in bankruptcy court for a debt that was outside the six year statute of limitations, the bankruptcy court dismissed the claim as time-barred, and the debtor filed a separate, subsequent lawsuit arguing that the claim was misleading in violation of the FDCPA. The Eleventh Circuit agreed concluding that filing proofs of claim on time-barred debt amounted to false and misleading conduct. More ›
Selling a Car, Texting and the TCPA
After a car dealership (allegedly) texted a person who listed a car for sale on Craiglist, the would be seller filed a class action suit against the dealer claiming the texts were unsolicited, made without consent, and violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Florida federal court, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) ordered briefing on whether texting created standing for the Craiglist seller to sue. On review, the federal court concluded receiving prohibited text messages and calls amount to sufficiently concrete and particularized harm. The court acknowledged other cases from around the country in which courts held that violations of the TCPA alone do not create injury for standing to sue but disagreed with this analysis. Instead, just the unsolicited telephone contact was the injury and any analysis of how the person was contacted does not matter for standing. With ongoing disagreement among courts throughout the country on what constitutes an injury sufficient to bring suit in federal court, expect rulings to continue to come down on both sides of the issue until the appellate courts provide further guidance.
The case is Mohamed v. Off Lease Only, Inc., Case No. 15-23352-Civ-COOKE/TORRES.
Nearly Fifty Debt Collector Calls in Two Weeks a Legitimate FDCPA Practice
A debt collector seeking to collect on a GAP credit card debt placed 49 telephone calls over the course of 18 days. The cardholder filed suit, arguing the calls constituted harassment under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Specifically, the cardholder stated that he had to stop what he was doing every time the phone rang, which not only disrupted and distracted him from his daily activities, but also caused frustration and anxiety.
A California federal court disagreed, finding the call frequency did not constitute harassment under the FDCPA because the debt collector waited at least 90 minutes between each call, did not contact the cardholder more than five times in a single day, and never left any voicemails. The court concluded the volume of calls resulted from the collector's inability to reach the cardholder, and that the number of attempts were legitimate and reasonable in light of the collector's unsuccessful efforts to reach the cardholder. Download a copy of the decision issued in Hinderstein v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, et al., Case No. CV-15-10017-DTB (C.D.Cal. Feb. 27, 2017)
Topics
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
- 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
- 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- ACA
- ACA International
- Amicus Brief
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Appraised Value
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- ATDS
- Attorneys' Fees
- Autodialer
- Automated Telephone Dialer Service
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- behavioral economics
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- BIPA
- Blockchain
- California
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- Car Dealership
- CCPA
- CFPB
- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Civil Contempt
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Communications
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Consumer Data Privacy
- Consumer Disclosures
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Creditor
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Damages
- Data Privacy Laws
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Purchase
- Debtor
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Services
- DFS
- Discovery Rule
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Due Process Clause
- Education
- Education Debt
- Eighth Amendment
- Electronic Communications
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- European General Data Privacy Regulation
- Excessive Fines Clause
- FACTA
- Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
- Fair Credit Billing Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Market Value
- Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
- FCBA
- FCC
- FCRA
- FDCPA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Housing Authority
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68
- Federal Trade Commission
- FHA
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Regulatory
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- For-Profit Student Loans
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- Fourteenth Amendment
- FTC
- GDPR
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- Hobbs Act
- HUD
- Illinois
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- IRS
- Judicial Estoppel
- Kathleen Kraninger
- Lack of Standing
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Lender Credit Bid
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Marijuana
- Minnesota
- Monetary Damages
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Acceleration
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loans
- Motion to Dismiss
- Municipal Code
- Municipal Code Violations
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- NPRM
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Post-Discharge-Communications
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Privacy
- Private Right of Action
- Property Value
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Relief
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Revocation of Election to Accelerate
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- Right to Cure Notice
- Robocalls
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- Sanitary Codes
- SCOTUS
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Seventh Circuit
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Interpretation
- Student Loans
- Students
- Supreme Court of the United States
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texting
- Third Circuit
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- U.S. Constitution
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Undue Hardship
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Treasury
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Washington D.C.
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Consumer Act