A Cautionary Tale Regarding Case and Witness Preparation in Third Circuit TCPA and FDCPA Decision

In a cautionary tale for the defense bar, the Third Circuit recently upheld a consumer's TCPA claims and reversed summary judgment on the FDCPA claims in Daubert v. NRA, Nos. 16-3613 and 16-3629 (3d Cir. July 3, 2017). More ›

Colorado Latest State to Define Debt Buyers as Debt Collectors; Will Others Soon Follow?

On June 1, 2017, just two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed the revised Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to specifically include debt buyers in the statute's definition of debt collectors. Colorado is now one of a small number of states that specifically include debt buyers under the law (including New York, California, and Washington). However, other states may follow suit. For instance, Oregon and Maine both have introduced bills to extend the definition of debt collector to include debt buyers. Considering that nearly two dozen state Attorneys General submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in Santander in favor of including debt buyers in the definition of debt collector under the FDCPA, it is possible that more states may follow the lead of Colorado. Ultimately, the various legislatures will decide whether debt buyers should fall within the scope of the state-enacted versions of the FDCPA; but, debt buyers should note, it is likely that Colorado will not be the last state to enact such legislation. Just as Justice Gorsuch noted in his Opinion that these are matters for the legislature and not the Supreme Court to resolve, it appears that at least some states may just take Justice Gorsuch up on his offer and include debt buyers in the scope of their regulatory framework. Ironically, Justice Gorsuch’s home state of Colorado leads the way.

In Unanimous Decision, SCOTUS Shields Debt Buyers From Reach of FDCPA But Important Questions Still Remain

Just two months after hearing argument in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., the Supreme Court declined the opportunity to expand the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") to debt buyers. In an earlier blog post, we noted the potential impact this case may have on the regulation (and marketplace as a whole) of companies that seek to collect defaulted accounts purchased from originating lenders. In his first opinion as a member of the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch penned an 11-page decision, affirming the Fourth Circuit's finding that Santander Consumer USA, Inc. ("Santander") did not constitute a "debt collector" under the relevant portion of the FDCPA's definition. More ›

Forgiveness of Debt Can Prove Unforgiving, But a New Federal Court Decision Gives Cause for Optimism

A federal court in New Jersey recently dismissed a putative class action filed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which had argued that it was deceptive conduct for a debt collector to inform the debtor that forgiveness of debt, in some circumstances, may be reportable to the Internal Revenue Service. The specific language included in the debt collector's letter was as follows: "We will report forgiveness of debt as required by the IRS regulations. Reporting is not required every time a debt is canceled or settled, and might not be required in your case." 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 ›

Does the FDCPA Apply to Debt Buyers? U.S. Supreme Court Will Soon Decide

On April 18, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument on the issue of whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") extends beyond traditional "debt collectors" to those entities that purchase debts from the original lender after a consumer account is in default, commonly known as "debt buyers." The case, Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 16-349, on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, touches upon the original purpose of the FDCPA in eliminating abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors. The key inquiry for the Court then was to determine whether the Congressional intent behind the Act was indeed to regulate all groups of entities in the debt collection marketplace or, in fact, more limited in scope to just those companies that collect directly or indirectly on behalf of another entity. More ›

87 Debt Collection Calls in 3 Weeks? Maybe too much

We return to the issue of retail debt collection with a case out of Illinois in which a federal judge has asked a jury to decide if a debt collection agency’s constant calling to a Banana Republic credit card holder violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The debt collector called the cardholder three to five times each day, with no two calls made less than two hours apart, for a total of eighty-seven calls between December 5 and December 23. On the 87th call, the cardholder answered and told the debt collector she could not pay the debt and to stop phoning her. Even though the debt collector did not call the cardholder again, the federal court refused summary judgment and decided a jury should review whether the volume and pattern of calling amounted to harassment under the FDCPA. We previously reported on a case out of California where a federal judge dismissed an FDCPA claim under the same circumstances and against the same debt collector. More ›

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)