During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.24 -- Communications with Third Parties -- Communications regarding Location Information

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.

10th Cir. Says “Communication” under the FDCPA Conveys Information “Directly or Indirectly” — Unless, Debt Collector is Trying to Obtain Location Information and Follows section 1692b

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Scribner v. Works & Lentz, Inc., 2016 WL 3981435, at *1 (C.A.10 (Okla.), 2016), the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit resolved the FDCPA's statutory conflict prohibiting communications which directly or indirectly disclose the debt (15 USC 1692c(b) and permissible communications to obtain location information (15 USC 1692b) In Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 668 F.3d 1174, 1177-78… Read More

District Court (Mich.) Says Debtor Has Standing and Valid Claim to Sue for 200+ Collection Calls Placed to and Third Party Disclosure to Debtor’s Parents, But Could Not Prove “Intent” Necessary to Prove Harassment

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Litt v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, 2015 WL 7351781, at *7-8 (E.D.Mich. 2015), Judge Borman found that the debtor had standing, and a valid claim, to sue for 200+ "wrong number" calls to the debtor's parents, even if most of them went unanswered.  The District Court found that the Plaintiff should be entitled to summary judgment on his claim for violation… Read More

3rd Circuit Says Debt Collector, Not Debtor, Bears the Burden of Proving That 3rd Party Communications Were to Confirm or Correct Location Information, and that Debt Collector Must Plead it as an Affirmative Defense

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Evankavitch v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2015 WL 4174441 (3d Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a debt collector bears the burden of proving that its communications with third parties were permitted attempts to confirm or correct location information.    The 3rd Circuit stated that communications with third parties to obtain location information… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Certifies Class Action under FDCPA for Debt Collector Leaving “Door Hangers” at Debtors’ Addresses

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Simpson v. Safeguard Properties, LLC, 2014 WL 4652336 (N.D.Ill. 2014), Judge Gotschall certified the following class under the FDCPA: Beginning in October 2012 and ending in February 2013, at the instruction of Midland, representatives of Safeguard left door hangers on Simpson's door on an approximately monthly basis. ( Id. ¶¶ 18–23.) These door hangers all contained the same text. The front… Read More

4th Cir. Says Debt Collector Can Call 3rd Party More Than Once for Location Information, If it Acts Reasonably

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Worsham v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 2012 WL 5503980 (4th Cir. 2012), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a debt collection company could call a third party to obtain location information more than one time so long as its belief that the third party had information about the debtor was reasonable. Although third parties may understandably find… Read More

District Court (Mass.) Finds V/M Message Left at Debtor’s Former Telephone Number and Former Residence States a Claim under FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Travers v. Collecto, Inc., 2013 WL 65452 (D.Mass. 2013), Judge O'Toole found that a voicemail message left for the debtor at a phone number/residence with which he was no longer associated stated a claim under the FDCPA. EOS does not challenge that the automated messages where communications about a debt made to a third party. Rather, EOS asks this Court to… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds Debt Collector Acted Properly in Interactions with Debtor’s Employer

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Ayala v. Creditors Specialty Service, Inc., 2012 WL 5198482 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge O’Neill found that, if true, a debt collector acted properly in its communications with the debtor’s employer. With regard to the merits of plaintiff's claims, she argues that she is entitled to summary judgment on her § 1692b(2) and Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.17 claims be-cause CSS disclosed… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says in Dicta that Debt Collector Can’t Call Third Parties to Confirm or Correct Location Information if Debt Collector Already Knows Where the Debtor Is

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Quigley v. Verizon Wireless, 2012 WL 1945784 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Chen allowed an FDCPA plaintiff leave to amend to allege a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c where the debtor claimed that he could allege that the debt collector knew where he was before the debt collector started to call third parties. Section 1692c covers communications in con-nection with… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Concludes that Debt Collector’s Mistaken Belief that Communications was with Spouse (as opposed to girlfriend) Created Liability for Third Party Disclosure

by Scott J. Hyman |

In McEndree v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 2012 WL 1640465 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge England found that liability cascaded down through the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA when a debt collector communicated about the debt with a girlfriend whom the debt collector mistakenly believed was the debtor's spouse.  Judge England found liability for impermissibly violating the prohibition against discussing more than location information… Read More

District Court (NY) Says FDCPA Affords Non-Debtor Only Limited Standing

by Scott J. Hyman |

Not all Plaintiffs are created equal under the FDCPA.  In Bank v. Pentagroup Financial, LLC, 2009 WL 1606420 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), Judge Gleeson held that a non-debtor has no standing to pursue a claim under 15 USC 1692c (debt collector can only communicate with the debtor, his attorney, or designated representative about the debt), but did have standing to pursue a harasment claim under… Read More