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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 3rd Circuit upheld a summary judgment ruling that dismissed a putative class action against a law firm: Candace Moyer brought a putative class action against Patenaude  &  Felix,  A.P.C.  under  the  Fair  Debt  Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) after Patenaude sent her a collection letter inviting her to “eliminate further collection action” by calling  Patenaude.  Moyer  claimed  that  this  invitation … Read More

1 2 3 16