Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.34 -- Communications with the Debtor -- False or Misleading Representations

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.

District Court (Ill.) Says Non-Local Debt Collector’s Use of Local Area Code to Call Debtor Did Not Violate FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Brown v. MRS BPO, LLC, No. 1:20 CV 06762, 2023 WL 6198815, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2023), Judge Gettleman dismissed an FDCPA premised on a debt collector's use of a local area code to get debtors to answer calls. When Judith Leavell (“Leavell”) became delinquent with respect to certain debts, including a debt from a Mercury Credit… Read More

District Court (Minn.) Says Repossession Company and Repossession Company Assignor Were Subject to FDCPA; “Breach of the Peace” Suspended Current Right to Possession under FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Altanie Hansen, Plaintiff, v. Santander Bank, N.A.; UAR Direct, LLC, d/b/a United Auto Recovery; 11th Hour Recovery, LLC, Defendants, No. 22-CV-3048 (SRN/TNL), 2023 WL 5533536, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Aug. 28, 2023), Judge Nelson found that a repossession company and the assignor were both subject to the FDCPA/1692a(6). To be bound by the provisions of the FDCPA, Defendants must… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal) Says in Unpublished Decision that “Knowledge” of Improper Service under 1788.15 Means “Constructive Knowledge” — Update: Certified for Publication 6.21.23

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Minser v. Collect Access, Nos. B318325, B321996, 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3029, at *13-18 (May 24, 2023), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision affirmed a judgment against a debt collector arising out of alleged improper service, holding that 1788.15's requirement that a debt collector "know" that service of process was not properly effected really means "constructive"… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds State Collection Laws Pre-empted by FCRA to the Extent Such Laws Impact Credit Reporting

by Scott J. Hyman |

In In re Wells Fargo Forbearance Litig., No. 20-cv-06009-JD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76443, at *17-18 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2023), Judge Donato found that state collection laws are preempted by the FCRA if they impact on credit reporting. Wells Fargo says that plaintiffs' claims under state consumer protection laws are preempted by the FCRA. Dkt. No. 172 at 14.… Read More

District Court (N.C.) Finds No FDCPA Violation for Placing Calls Showing Local Area Code on Called Party’s Caller ID Rather than Location in Texas from Where Calls Were Actually Placed

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Brayton v. Alltran Fin., LP, No. 1:21-cv-309-MOC-WCM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72396, at *12-14 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2023), Judge Cogburn dismissed an FDCPA premised on an argument that calls showing the area code local to the debtor on the debtor's caller ID were deceptive. Plaintiff's claim under Section 1692e(10) is predicated on the theory that it was false or… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Affirms Anti-SLAPP Motion; Says Rosenthal Act Incorporates Federal FDCPA’s Materiality Standard and Should Be Interpreted Based on Current FDCPA Jurisprudence

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Aguilar v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. H049860, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 22 (Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023), the California Court of Appeal found that the Rosenthal Act incorporated the federal FDCPA’s materiality standard, and affirmed an anti-SLAPP motion filed by a debt collector. Whether the nature of the relationship between OneMain Financial and OneMain Financial Issuance Trust is… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says in Unpublished Sticker that Trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment to Debt Collector Arising from Debt Collector’s Post-It Note Stapled to Pleadings

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Scott v. Credit Consulting Servs., No. H049063, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5210, at *21-24 (Aug. 23, 2022), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision reversed summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the debt collector. The misleading character of a covered communication is material if it could "cause the least sophisticated debtor to suffer… Read More

District Court (N.C.) Finds Evidentiary Dispute Regarding Whether Credit Report from CRAs is Sufficient to Demonstrate Furnisher’s 1692e(8) Obligation to Report Account as Disputed

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Richmond v. Medicredit, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-00068-KDB-DSC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130092, at *8 (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2022), Judge Bell denied an FDCPA defendant's summary judgment motion. The Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Medicredit reported Richmond's debts as disputed to the credit reporting agencies ("CRAs"). The FDCPA protects consumers from certain… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Strike Two on FDCPA Plaintiff’s Contention that a Debt Collector Should Not Have Reported an Account as “Disputed” After the Debtor No Longer Disputed the Debt

by Scott J. Hyman |

We previously reported on this case here:  https://www.severson.com/consumer-finance/district-court-cal-finds-no-fdcpa-claim-based-on-reporting-account-as-disputed-when-debtor-did-not-dispute-the-debt/ Now, again, in Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114028, at *4-8 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2022), Magistrate Oberta again granted a Motion to Dismiss, but again gave leave to amend, on whether credit reporting constituted debt collection activity. The purposes of the FDCPA are "to eliminate… Read More

CFPB Issues Advisory Opinion on “Pay-to-Pay” or “Convenience Fees”

by Erik W. Kemp |

On June 29, 2022, the CFPB issued an Advisory Opinion on collection of "convenience fees".  https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-moves-to-reduce-junk-fees-charged-by-debt-collectors/  A copy of the Advisory Opinion can be found here. Severson has been following the CFPB's evolving position(s) and regulation of "convenience fees".   CFPB-2017-S&WConvenience-Fees-Bulletin; 2018-AmericanBarAssociation-Article-on-Convnience-Fees Referring to its 2017 Compliance Bulletin, the CFPB stated: For example, in 2017, the CFPB issued a compliance bulletin… Read More

6th Cir. Applies “Objectively Baseless” Standard to Ipso Facto Rule When Debt Collector Loses Prosecution of Action on the Debt

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Snyder v. Finley & Co., L.P.A., No. 21-3997, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16512, at *1 (6th Cir. June 15, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit explained how, and when, a debt collector can be found liable when losing litigation on the debt itself; i.e. does the debt collector ipso facto violate the FDCPA when it loses… Read More

6th Cir. Says Application for Garnishment to State Court Is a “”threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5), but Reverses So Debt Collector Can Explain the Factual and Legal Basis for the Application

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Thompson v. Renner, No. 21-1366, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706, at *10-12 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that a garnishment application to a state court was a communication under under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) But even without state-specific rules regarding affirmative representations, filing a garnishment request without reasonable belief that… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds No FDCPA Claim Based on Reporting Account as “Disputed” When Debtor Did Not Dispute the Debt

by Scott J. Hyman |

In a strange fact pattern, in Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72102, at *11-14 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022), Magistrate Judge Oberto dismissed FDCPA claims derived from Plaintiff's complaint that the debt collector reported the Account as disputed when the Plaintiff previously had written to the debt collector to advise that he did not… Read More

9th Cir. Says “Fees” Under the FDCPA’s “Fees Authorized by Contract” Includes Paralegal Fees

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Almada v. Krieger Law Firm, A.P.C., No. 21-55275, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1946, at *4-5 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a dunning letter was not deceptive because "fees" claimed were "paralegal" fees. Almada argues that Kriger's assessment of the prelien fee violates the FDCPA because the fee was not… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says “Pay-to-Pay” Fees Were Subject to the Rosenthal Act as “Due and Owing” Under the AG’s Opinion, But Did Not Violate the Act Because the Fees Were Permitted By Law and the Deed of Trust

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Mariscal v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, No. ED CV 19-2023-DMG (SHKx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171374, at *4-8 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2021), Judge Gee dismissed, a second time, the Plaintiff's Rosenthal Act Class Action challenging a mortgage company's "pay-to-pay" fees. The fee itself need not be a debt, as long as it is connected to the collection of a… Read More

District Court (Ala.) Says FDPCA Plaintiff States 1692e(8) Claim For Collector’s Failure to Report Subsequent Report as “Disputed”

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Canady v. Kaps & Co. (USA) Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 4:20-CV-1253-CLM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148878, at *7-9 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2021), Judge Maze found that an FDCPA Plaintiff stated a 1692e(8) claim. Kaps also argues that Canady's complaint fails to state a claim under § 1692e(8) because Canady alleges that she disputed the debt only after Kaps… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Outlines Obligations of Debt Collector Dealing with “Disputed” Consumer Reporting under FDCPA 1692e(8)

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Wood v. Sec. Credit Servs., LLC, No. 20-cv-02369, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135926, at *5 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2021), Judge Norgle denied summary judgment against a debt collector due to a question of fact regarding the debt collector's knowledge of a dispute regarding the reporting of the debt.  The District Court outlined the legal standards under 15 USC… Read More

8th Circuit Court of Appeals Holds No Ipso Facto Violation of the FDCPA Where the Debt Collector Fails to Meet Evidentiary Burden in Underlying Collection Action

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Smith v. Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd. (8th Cir. 2021) 990 F.3d 640, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of consolidation actions under the FDCPA against the same debt collection law firm and declined to hold that a FDCPA claim is stated ipso facto because the debt collector lost the underlying collection action. In underlying collections actions… Read More

1 2 3 … 9