Showing 34 posts in FDCPA.
Uniformity Achieved: Third Circuit Rules There is No Written Requirement to Dispute Validity of a Debt Under FDCPA
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc decision in Riccio v. Sentry Credit, overturning Graziano v. Harrison, after finding that there is no written dispute requirement in Section 1692g(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the court, this decision ends "a circuit split and restores national uniformity to the meaning of §1692g." Moreover, the decision applies retroactively to any claim still open on the issue, thus closing the chapter on a written requirement for Section 1692g. More ›
Second Circuit Re-Emphasizes that FDCPA Claims Must Allege a Material Representation
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently took the opportunity to apply its 2018 holding in Cohen v. Rosicki, which had held that a consumer pursuing a claim for violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a material misrepresentation. Materiality depends on "whether the false statement would frustrate a consumer's ability to intelligently choose his or her response," or if the representation "could mislead the debtor as to the negate and legal status of the underlying debt," or "could impede the consumer's ability to respond to or dispute collection." More ›
U.S. Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split, Applies Occurrence Rule to FDCPA Statute of Limitations
Earlier this year, this blog reported on the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in circuits on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) statute of limitations. This week, in an 8:1 opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations in the FDCPA begins to run when the violation occurs, not when the violation is discovered. In doing so, they overturned rulings by the Fourth and Ninth Circuit, which had held the FDCPA's statute of limitations was subject to equitable tolling. More ›
FDCPA Claims Dismissed As a Result of Plaintiff's Bad Faith Bankruptcy Conduct
In Vedernikov v. Atl. Credit & Fin., Inc., (Vedernikov I), the U.S. District Court of New Jersey granted the defendant Midland Funding's motion to dismiss, which successfully argued the plaintiff should be estopped from bringing FDCPA claims that he failed to disclose during a bankruptcy action from which he had been discharged. After Midland Funding filed its motion to dismiss in Vedernikov I, the same Court also issued an Order to Show Cause and ultimately dismissed Vedernikov v. Oliphant Financial, LLC (Vedernikov II), another matter brought by the same plaintiff. More ›
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Plaintiff Avila’s Challenge to the Safe Harbor She Established in Avila I
We previously discussed Avila v. Reliant (Avila II) and U.S. District Court Judge Spatt’s dismissal of a consumer’s attempt to sue on the “safe harbor” language she helped establish in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates (Avila I). As predicted, Avila II was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, the Court did not address Judge Spatt’s reasoning for the dismissal. 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 ›
CFPB Proposes New Rules to Modernize Application of the FDCPA
On May 7, 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The significance of this NPRM cannot be understated. The CFPB's proposed rules cover multiple aspects of debt collection and are one of most substantial developments in the debt collection industry since the enactment of the FDCPA in 1977. The proposed rules seek to modernize application of the FDCPA to match the sophistication of today's electronic communications (e.g., voicemails, text messages, and electronic mail) and provide safe harbors and prescribe prohibited conduct. We've highlighted some of the proposed rules that demonstrate the significant impact on both debt collectors and debtors below. More ›
SCOTUS Determines Foreclosure Firm is Not a Debt Collector Under the FDCPA's Primary Definition
Less than three months after hearing oral arguments in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Case No. 17-1307, the United States Supreme Court held, in a 9-0 decision, that a business engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA, "the Act"), except for the limited prohibitions set forth in 1692(f)(6). The decision provides helpful guidance to law firms and loan servicers who pursue nonjudicial foreclosures. More ›
The Third Circuit Takes a More Expansive Approach to What Constitutes a Debt Collector under the FDCPA
On February 22, 2019, the Third Circuit in Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, issued a decision that expands the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) definition of the term "debt collector" to any entity that acquires debt for the purpose of collection, but outsources the actual debt collection activity. More ›
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Resolve Circuit Split on When the Limitations Period for FDCPA Claims Should Start
As we predicted last year, the United States Supreme Court earlier this week granted Plaintiff's petition for certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in the circuits on whether the statute of limitations for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim begins when the alleged violation occurred (known as the "occurrence rule") or when the consumer discovers the alleged violation (known as the "discovery rule"). More ›
Topics
- ACA
- ACA International
- Amicus Brief
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Appraised Value
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- ATDS
- Attorneys' Fees
- Auto-Dialer
- Automatic Telephone Dialing System
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- behavioral economics
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Bitcoin
- Blockchain
- California
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- Car Dealership
- CARES Act
- CCPA
- CFPB
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Civil Contempt
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Climate Change
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Commercial Foreclosure
- Communications
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Connecticut
- Connecticut Insurance Department
- Constitutional Claims
- Consumer Data Privacy
- Consumer Disclosures
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- COVID-19
- CPRA
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Credit Reporting Agencies
- Creditor
- Cryptocurrency
- cyber regulation
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Damages
- Data Breach
- Data Privacy Laws
- Data Security
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Dispute
- Debt Purchase
- Debtor
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Department of Financial Services
- DFS
- DFS Part 500
- Discovery Rule
- District of Columbia
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Due Process Clause
- Education
- Education Debt
- Eighth Amendment
- Electronic Communications
- Eleventh Amendment
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- European General Data Privacy Regulation
- Eviction
- Excessive Fines Clause
- Executive Order
- 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 Administration
- Federal Housing Finance Agency
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68
- Federal Trade Commission
- FHA
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Regulatory
- Financial Risk
- FinTech
- First Amendment
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- For-Profit Student Loans
- Forbearance
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
- FTC
- GDPR
- hacking
- HealthTech
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- Hobbs Act
- HUD
- Human Intervention Test
- IDFPR
- Illinois
- Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
- Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- IRS
- Judicial Estoppel
- Kathleen Kraninger
- kickbacks
- Lack of Standing
- Landlord and Tenant
- Least Sophisticated Consumer Standard
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Lender Credit Bid
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Discharge
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Marketing Services Agreements
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Material Misrepresentation
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Debts
- Medical Marijuana
- Minnesota
- Monetary Damages
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Acceleration
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loans
- Mortgage Servicers
- Mortgage Servicing
- Motion to Dismiss
- MSA
- Municipal Code
- Municipal Code Violations
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Court of Appeals
- New York Department of Financial Services
- New York Real Property Procedures and Acts
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- NPRM
- NYS DFS
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Paragraph 22
- Part 500
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Post-Discharge-Communications
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Preemption
- Privacy
- Private Right of Action
- Property Value
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- referral fees
- Regulated Entities
- Regulated Non-Depositories
- Regulated Organizations
- Regulation
- Regulation X
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Compliance
- Regulatory Relief
- Remote Working
- Residential Foreclosure
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Revocation of Election to Accelerate
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- Right of Redemption
- Right to Cure
- Right to Cure Notice
- Right to Reinstate
- Risk Management
- Robocalls
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- Sanitary Codes
- SCOTUS
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Settlement Conference
- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Social Media
- Standard of Proof
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Interpretation
- Stimulus
- Student Loans
- Students
- Supreme Court of the United States
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texting
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- U.S. Constitution
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Undue Hardship
- Unfair and Deceptive Practices
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Treasury
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Usury Laws
- Video Conferencing
- Virginia
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Washington D.C.
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Consumer Act