New York Federal Court Demands that FDCPA Plaintiffs Read Entire Debt Collection Letter to Determine Creditor's Identity

In Goldstein v. Diversified Adjustment Serv., the Eastern District of New York may have walked back one of the new favorite Fair Debt Collection Practices Act  (the "FDCPA") claims—namely that the creditor was not properly identified pursuant to § 1692g of the FDCPA. Although the debt collection letter at issue listed Sprint several times, Goldstein's complaint nonetheless alleged that the debt collection letter violated the FDCPA by failing to adequately identify to whom the debt was owed and what Sprint's role was. More ›

Overshadowed and Contradicted: Third Circuit Rules Second Demand Letter Violated FDCPA's "Validation Notice" Requirement

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently reiterated how a debt collector may run afoul of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending a misleading follow-up, even if it served a compliant demand letter weeks earlier. More ›

Illinois Federal Court Dismisses FDCPA Claims Focused on "Bounced Check" Language in Collection Letter

Recently, an Illinois federal court denied and dismissed two plaintiffs' Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims after the plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to establish materiality. 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 ›

Rhode Island Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss FDCPA Case against Law Firm Pursuing Mortgage Foreclosure

Should a law firm pursuing foreclosure on behalf of a mortgagee be considered a debt collector? That is a question at issue in a Rhode Island federal court case, in which borrower Lloyd Amesbury filed a class action lawsuit alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violations against a firm retained to initiate foreclosure on his home after he received a notice of default on the firm’s letterhead. Amesbury claimed the letter was false and misleading because of a discrepancy in the amount owed described in a letter he received from the law firm in April, 2016, and a May, 2016, bankruptcy proof of claim. The law firm moved to dismiss the case on grounds that it was not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, because the default notice was an attempt to enforce a security interest on behalf of its mortgagee client.

Although the law firm was pursuing non-judicial foreclosure of property by providing the borrower notice of default and right to cure, the Rhode Island federal court concluded that the borrower’s complaint contained facts sufficient to demonstrate that the law firm was a debt collector under the FDCPA. Here is a description of its reasoning. 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 ›