Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.25 -- Communications with Third Parties -- Communications Regarding the Debt -- Federal

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 (Or.) Says V/M Overheard by Third Party Not Actionable Under the FDCPA; Court Adopts a “Foreseeability” Standard for Debt Collectors to Anticipate Whether Third Parties Will Hear a Message

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Peak v. Professional Credit Service, 2015 WL 7862774, at *5-6 (D.Or., 2015), Judge Aiken granted summary judgment to a debt collector who was sued by a debtor for a collection v/m to which the debtor allowed access to a third party. Finally, defendant contends the voicemail messages were not communications “with” third parties because it had no reason to suspect… 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

6th Circuit Says V/M Message Left By Debt Collector at Debtor’s Work Was Not a “Communication” under FDCPA Because It Did Not Convey Information about the Debt

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Brown v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 2015 WL 6220521, at *2-5 (C.A.6 (Mich.),2015), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the granting of judgment on the pleadings in favor of a debt collector based on the allegation that a voicemail message left violated the FDCPA.  In Brown,  a Van Ru employee called Brown's business and left the following voicemail… Read More

District Court (N.Y.) Says FDCPA Hasn’t Kept Up with Technology; Holds that Overheard V/M Did Not Violate FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Zweigenhaft v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, 2014 WL 6085912 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), Judge Dearie found a voicemail message did not violate the FDCPA. The case involved a voicemail message stating that a call was from a debt collector coupled with a return phone call where the voicemail message’s intended recipient is disclosed to a third-party. Courts addressing whether overheard voicemails… 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 (Wash.) Finds Guerrero Controlling; FDCPA Not Applicable to Communications Directed at Debtor’s Counsel

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Angel v. American Recovery Services Inc., 2012 WL 3594371 (W.D.Wash.), Judge Coughenour followed the 9th Circuit’s rule in Guerrero that the FDCPA does not apply to communications with debtor’s counsel. ARSI contends that any relief for Plaintiff on the facts alleged is foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions, 499 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2007). In… Read More

9th Circuit Says Debt Collectors Can Not Send Collection Letters to Debtor’s Employer “c/o” the Debtor, Particularly When Debt Collector Knows Debtor’s Residential Address

by Scott J. Hyman |

We previously addressed the Evon case oral argument here:  http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=2563&preview=true&preview_id=2563&preview_nonce=86a7e87b16.  The Court of Appeals issued its ruling yesterday.  In Evon v. Law Offices of Mickel, here, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found deceptive the practice of sending collection letters to the debtors at their employer's address. Next, even if Mickell assumed that some debtors receive mail at… 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

10th Circuit Finds Debt Collector’s Fax to Debtor’s Employer re: Wage Garnishment Not a “Communication” Under FDCPA; Disagrees with 9th Circuit’s Rouse Decision that FDCPA’s ‘bad faith’ reverse-cost provision overrules Rule 54(d)

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Marx v. General Revenue Corporation, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling after a bench trial that a fax by a debt collector to a debtor's employer to verify employment for purposes of wage garnishment was not a prohibited third party communication under the FDCPA.  The Court of Appeals explained: The facsimile in… Read More

1 2