Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.31 -- Communications with Debtor -- Consumer Requests to Cease Communications

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 Hatuey v. IC System, Inc., Civ. No. 1:16-CV-12542-DPW, 2018 WL 5982020 (D.Mass. Nov. 14, 2018), Judge Woodlock granted summary judgment to a debt collector on FDCPA and TCPA claims. On the FDCPA claim, the Court held that a cease and desist with respect to one account did not operate with respect to a second account. Although both the calls in… Read More

In Young v. Northland Group, 2018 WL 306023, at *1–2 (E.D.Mo., 2018), Judge Autrey allowed an FDCPA claim to proceed based on the consumer's allegation that the debt collector did not immediately cease communications about the debt after the debtor notified the debt collector of representation by bankruptcy counsel. “The purpose of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices… Read More

In Robin v. Miller and Steeno, P.C., 2014 WL 3734318 (E.D.Mo. 2014), Judge Limbaugh treated an oral Notice of Representation given during a collection call like a Miranda warning, requiring the collector to terminate the call once the Notice was given. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a… 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 Hadsell v. CACH, LLC, 2014 WL 497433 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Lorenz, within the context of a motion for reconsideration, granted partial summary judgment and denied partial summary judgment to an FDCPA defendant alleged to have violated a Cease-and-Desist letter from the debtor and to have violated the FDCPA by praying for 10% interest in the Prayer for Relief in… Read More

In Cerrato v. Solomon & Solomon --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 6621339 (D.Conn. 2012), Judge Hall found that a debt collector violated a consumer's cease-and-desist by making 8 attempts to call the customer after the cease-and-desist, even though the customer never answered any of those calls.  The Court analogized to Foti's holding that voicemail messages were 'communications' under the FDCPA, and found,… Read More

In Beard v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 2012 WL 3778880 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Mueller partially granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FDCPA harassment claim.  Judge Mueller found that the call volume and pattern did not support a claim of harassment. Plaintiff later estimated that Sentry called her at least seven times per day, every day over the course of months (Id. at… Read More

In Snyder v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., 2012 WL 3643673 (W.D.Wash. 2012), Judge Jones found that a single non-itemized statement of the debt in the debt collector's initial communication was deceptive because it did not itemize the obligation. As far as the court is aware, the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed the issue of whether a debt collector must provide the… Read More

In Pace v. Portfolio Recovery Services, LLC, 2012 WL 2398024, (W.D.Mo. 2012),  here, Judge Sachs held that a Plaintiff who gave ambiguous testimony on mailing of a Cease and Desist letter under FDCPA was not entitled to the presumption of the mailbox rule wherein delivery is presumed. Whether plaintiff can create a jury issue over adequately having given written notification to… Read More

  In Johnson v. PMAB, LLC, 2012 WL 1379843 (W.D.N.C. 2012), Judge Conrad held that only consumers, and not third parties, have standing to pursue a cease-and-desist violation under the FDCPA. The Fourth Circuit addressed more general standing to sue under the FDCPA in Rawlinson v. Law Office of William M. Rudow, LLC, No. 10–2148, 2012 WL 19666 (4th Cir.… Read More

1 2