Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Consumer Finance

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Hamberg v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2010 WL 2523947 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Huff refused to strike the Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Rosenthal Act which sought a “per violation” penalty rather than a “per suit”.  Judge Huff explained:   Plaintiffs' SAC seeks statutory damages of $1,000 per violation of the Rosenthal Act. (SAC, prayer for relief.) The Rosenthal… Read More

In Lange v. CIR Law Offices, 2010 WL 2524089 (S.D.Cal. 2010) Judge Bencivengo found that a law firm engaged in debt collection whose post-judgment garnishment had erroneously garnished exempt social security funds did not violate the FDCPA.  Judge Bencivengo explained:    In the absence of any evidence that CIR had any knowledge of the nature of Lange's account prior to… Read More

In Day v. American Home Servicing, Inc. 2010 WL 2231988 (E.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Burrell held that a consumer stated a Rosenthal Act claim under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard for communicating with a represented party notwithstanding the fact that notice was not given in writing.  Judge Burrell explained:   Since the Rosenthal Act incorporates violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection… Read More

In Shuler v. Ingram & Associates, 2010 WL 1833626 (N.D.Ala. 2010), Judge Kallon addressed what constitutes harassment, both in substance and frequency.   As to substance, Judge Kallon listed to audiotapes and found that testiness and advising a consumer of the consequences of their (in)action did not violate the FDCPA.   Section 1692d(2) forbids debt collectors from “engaging in any conduct… Read More

Not personal property, but worth the read.  In In re: Aniel, --- B.R. ----, 2010 WL 1609923 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal.), Judge Montali did not vacate a relief from stay order, explaining that the debtor “steadfastly and repeatedly resisted motions for relief from stay, while at the same time steadfastly and repeatedly refus[ed] to make payments pending resolution of their disputes about the… Read More

In Marcotte v. General Electric Capital Services, Inc., 2010 WL 1573680 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Moskowitz held that the Rosenthal Act did not prohibit a credit card company from sending billing statements notwithstanding notice from the debtor’s counsel that the debtor was represented.    Judge Moskowitz summarized:   In summary, the Court concludes that billing statements are exempted under § 1788.17… Read More

In Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, LPA, --- S.Ct. ----, 2010 WL 1558977 (2010), Justice Sotomayor ruled that the bona fide error defense in §1692k(c) does not apply to a violation resulting from a debt collector’s mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA.     The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692… Read More

In Purdue v. Kenny, -- S.Ct. -- (2010), Justice Alito authored an opinion holding that there is a strong presumption that the lodestar method of calculating attorneys' fees in fee shifting statutes (in this case, 42 USC 1988) sufficiently compensates the attorney, and that a multiplier, while allowed, is permissible only in rare cases.   While Purdue involved a civil rights… Read More

In Holster v. Gatco, Inc., --- S.Ct. ----, 2010 WL 1525998 (2010), the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari as to whether a TCPA matter could proceed in federal court notwithstanding New York’s prohibition against TCPA class action.  Judge Scalia concurred in the grant of certiorari, explaining:   The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is… Read More

In Elliott v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 2010 WL 1495402 (S.D.Cal. 2010) Judge Sabraw applied the more stringent pleading standard of Iqbal and Twombly to find that a debt collector’s use of the term “Warning Notice” with its debt validation letter neither overshadowed the debtor’s validation rights nor constituted an unfair debt collection practice.    In two recent opinions, the… Read More

In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., --- S.Ct. ----, 2010 WL 1222272 (2010), Justice Scalia addressed the case where a medical provider brought putative class action against automobile insurer, alleging breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, and violation of New York law in failing to pay statutory interest penalties on overdue payments of insurance… Read More

In McCarther-Morgan v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 2010 WL 1417868 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Bankruptcy supremacy over the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act, explaining:    Betty Jean McCarther-Morgan appeals the dismissal of her adversary action against Asset Acceptance, LLC. McCarther-Morgan alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the California Rosenthal… Read More

In Membrila v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC 2010 WL 1407274 (S.D.Cal.), Judge Gonzalez found that a consumer properly pleaded a claim against a debt collector for the manner of recording the collection calls, explaining:   California Penal Code § 632, on the other hand, does apply to recording by a participant to a conversation. Section 632 provides a civil remedy… Read More

In Poulin v. Balise Auto Sales, Inc. 2010 WL 1370862 (D.Conn.), Judge Haight dismissed a TILA claim against a car dealer and it’s finance company assignee because it failed to state a claim.  The allegations were that   Balise and ACE have acted in concert in selling motor vehicles pursuant to retail installment contracts at inflated cash prices to consumers… Read More

The FTC issued its annual report on the FDCPA, accompanied by the following press release: At a time when many consumers are facing debt problems, the Federal Trade Commission has issued its annual report detailing the steps the agency has taken to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive debt collection practices and educate the public on the subject. The 32nd… Read More

On March 22, 2010, the FCC issued it's notice of proposed rulemaking, a copy of which is here.  This competes with the FTC's efforts to regulate the TCPA, too.  The FCC's version includes regulations which, if effectuated, would prohibit a person from initiating any telephone call using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a consumer’s… Read More

In Winberry v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2010 WL 996144 (M.D.Ala. 2010), Judge Albritton addressed the debt collector's summary judgment motion on a number of claims made by the Plaintiffs, among them that the the defendant's 33 calls in 1 month did not constitute harassment under the FDCPA.  Judge Albritton rejected the debt collector's claim, explaining that   Viewing this testimony… Read More

In Booth v. Mee, Mee & Hoge, P.L.L.C.,  2010 WL 988473 (W.D.Okla. 2010),  Judge DiGiusti applied a narrow reading of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Slenk, and determined a debt’s ‘consumer purpose’ at the time of debt origination rather than a later consumer use of the collateral.  Judge DiGiusti explained:   Courts construing the FDCPA have generally held, however, that… Read More

1 141 142 143 144 145 154