Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.28 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Cessation of Communications with the Debtor -- Notification that Consumer is Represented by Counsel

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 Swartzlander v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., LP, No. 19cv580-WQH-BGS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127053, at *3-9 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2019), Judge Hayes dismissed an FDCPA Plaintiff's claimed premised on collection letters sent to her counsel. Defendant contends that communications to a consumer's attorney are not actionable under the FDCPA, as determined by the Court of Appeals in the controlling case… Read More

In Gebhardt v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc., 2017 WL 2562106, at *2–3 (D.N.J., 2017), Judge Cooper granted summary judgment for a debt collector who called the debtor after "receiving" a notice of representation letter from the debtor's counsel. The sole contention between the parties, and the only question for us to resolve with this count, is whether Defendant had the… Read More

In Ruvalcaba v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2016 WL 7178855 (S.D. Cal. 2016), the Court held that billing statements were permitted to be sent to a debtor despite being represented by counsel. Plaintiff alleges that Ocwen violated both 15 U.S.C. § 1692c (incorporated by reference in the California FDCPA by California Civil Code § 1788.17) and California Civil Code §… Read More

In Munoz v. California Business Bureau, Inc., 2016 WL 6517655 (E.D. Cal. 2016), Magistrate Judge McAuliffe found that a debt subject to the Rosenthal Act did not lose its character because it was settled, nor did the settle end the debtor’s counsel’s representation so as to allow direct communication with the debtor by the debt collector’s counsel.  First, Judge McAuliffe… Read More

In Vilinsky v. Phelan Hallinan & Diamond, PC, 2016 WL 805970, at *2 (C.A.3 (N.J.),2016), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a notice of assignment sent directly to a represented debtor did not violate the FDCPA because it was not in connection with the collection of the debt. The issue in this case is whether a… Read More

In Camacho v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 2015 WL 3454070, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. 2015), Judge Freeman rejected a debt collector's contention that the words used by the debtor's counsel did not convey that the debtor was represented by counsel. Under both the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act, a debt collector may not directly communicate with an individual debtor in connection… Read More

In Alvarado v. Credit Protection Association, L.P., 2015 WL 859109 (M.D.Fla. 2015), Judge Covington rejected the argument made by a TCPA defendant that a “Notice of Representation” from Plaintiff’s counsel was inadmissible as a confidential settlement communication because the letter was relevant to cease-and-desist under the FDCPA and revocation of consent under the TCPA. Although the September Letter contains language… Read More

In Istre v. Miramed Revenue Group, LLC, 2014 WL 4988201 (E.D.Mo. 2014), Judge Barton held that when a debtor tells the debt collector that she is represented by counsel, the debt collector has to stop the call. The facts were as follows: According to plaintiff's factual allegations, the following occurred. Plaintiff, a “consumer” for pur-poses of the FDCPA, resides in… Read More

In Taufen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., 2014 WL 668019 (D.Minn. 2014), Judge Frank held that an FDCPA plaintiff seeking to prove that a “Notice of Representation” was violated under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) must prove both that a Notice of Representation was given and that the attorney’s name was reasonably ascertainable. Even if the Court were to conclude that… Read More

In Hockenhull v. Law Office Howard Lee Schiff, P.C.  2012 WL 6525504 (D.R.I. 2012), Judge Smith rejected a debt collector's contention that he could ignore a Notice of Representation simply because the attorney is issued the NoR was not admitted to practice in Rhode Island.  Judge Smith explained: In response to Count I, that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) by… Read More

1 2