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

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

In Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6754, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the District Court for the District of Oregon that granted a motion to dismiss where the District Court reasoned the debt collector did not violate the FDCPA prohibitions on attempting to collect on a time barred debt because the… Read More

In Elbert v. RoundPoint Mortg. Servicing Corp., No. 20-cv-00250-MMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221611 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2020), Judge Chesney allowed a Rosenthal Act claim to proceed against a mortgage servicer based on charges assessed when the consumer made payments by telephone. As noted, a violation of the FDCPA constitutes a violation of the Rosenthal Act as well. See… Read More

In Lembeck v. Arvest Cent. Mortg. Co., No. 20-cv-03277-VC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205511, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020), Judge Chhabria denied a mortgage servicer's FRCP 12(b)(6) motion regarding the propriety of the servicer's charging the Plaintiffs an IVR fee to make their mortgage payments. Valerie Lembeck alleges that her mortgage servicer, Arvest Central Mortgage Company, violates California… Read More

In Ruiz v. Hunt & Henriques, No. D075286, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4847 (July 29, 2020), in the context of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the debt collection law firm, the Court of Appeal found that a debtor need not dispute the debt to challenge the amount of the debt stated. Hunt alternatively argues that Ruiz cannot recover under… Read More

In Webster v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., No. 1:18-cv-03940-TWP-DML, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128233 (S.D. Ind. July 21, 2020), Judge Walton Pratt found that a debt collector violated the FDCPA by failing to report an account as ‘disputed’ despite the fact that the consumer did not dispute the debt within the 30-day validation period and despite the consumer’s faxing a dispute… Read More

In Zuniga v. Trueaccord, No. 18-683 KG/KRS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95445 (D.N.M. June 1, 2020), the District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant debt collector in an FDCPA class action. Plaintiff admits that she owes $1,585.00 on the Golden Valley Lending loan. (Doc. 26-3) at 4, depo. at 72. On March 2, 2018, Defendant sent an email to… Read More

In Manuel v. Merchs. & Prof'l Bureau, Inc., No. 19-50814, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13779, at *8 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a dunning letter on a time-barred debt was deceptive, and outlined the standards for letters seeking to collect on time-barred debts. Our decision in Daugherty is central to… Read More

In Krier v. United Revenue Corp., No. 3:19-CV-2954-G, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74844 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2020), Judge Fish allowed an FDCPA claim premised on 15 USC 1692e(8) because the debt collector did not report the account a disputed. Krier claims that United violated Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by failing to include notice of Krier's dispute in the… Read More

In Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc., No. 18-50551, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 481 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed class certification in an FDCPA case. This class fails for similar reasons. Every member of the putative class received the same allegedly threatening letter from Medicredit. But the FDCPA penalizes empty threats, not all… Read More

In Stimpson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 18-35833, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37470, at *8 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA in its dunning letter collecting on a stale debt. Stimpson first identifies the letter's statute-of-limitations disclosure as a primary example of misleading… Read More

In Heredia v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., No. 19-1296, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33444, at *4 (7th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held that a debt collector's reference to the possibility of issuing a 1099-C was materially misleading, at the pleadings stage. The language at the crux of this lawsuit is the part… Read More

In Koehler v. Waypoint Res. Grp., No. 8:18-cv-2071-T-60AAS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191438 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019), the District Court held that a debt collector’s reporting of a cable bill to the CRAs did not trigger the FDCPA. All of Koehler's FDCPA claims are based on Waypoint's error in reporting the original creditor as "Charter Communications" rather than "Bright… Read More

In Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins, No. D072299, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 603, at *12-15 (Ct. App. July 1, 2019), the California Court of Appeal addressed the evidence necessary to prove up a credit card debt in a debt collection action. Assuming without  deciding that California law applies, a party may accept a contract by conduct, as well as… Read More

In Hall v. Southwest Credit Sys., L.P., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73350, *5-11 (D.C. Dist. May 1, 2019), Judge Howell found that a debt collector's failure to report to the consumer reporting agencies that the account was "disputed" could violate multiple provisions of the FDCPA. This case concerns one allegation: The defendant reported a debt to credit bureaus that the… Read More

In Brown v. I.C. Sys., No. 16 C 9784, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45384 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2019), Judge Alonso denied a debt collector’s summary judgment motion, first finding that the call pattern created a question of fact. Defendant argues that its recordings of connected calls show that plaintiff never told defendant to stop calling; on the few occasions… Read More

In Sanders v. LoanCare LLC, No. 18-CV-09376, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20900, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019), Judge Otero addressed, albeit in a mortgage situation, whether the collection of an online payment fee during a 10-day grace period triggered the Rosenthal Act.  The facts were as follows: In February 2018, Plaintiff received a Notice of Service Transfer ("Notice")… Read More

In Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC., 2018 WL 6592442, at *4–5 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Chen refused to strike an affirmative defense related to an FDCPA allegation that a CCP 98 declaration in the underlying state court debt collection action allegedly was false. Defendants' seventeenth affirmative defense asserts: “A debt collector does not make misrepresentations in violation of [the FDCPA]… Read More

In Alarcon v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., 2018 WL 6266558, at *4 (S.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Burns granted summary judgment under the FDCPA in favor of a debt collector who collected, by non-judicial means, on a debt that previously had been adjudicated in favor of the debtor. The question presented in this case is whether that ruling in favor of Alarcon in… Read More

In Jones v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No. 18-CV-1860-BAS-RBB, 2018 WL 6062414 (S.D. Cal. November 20, 2018), the District Court dismissed an FDCPA claim brought against a debt collector arising out of a letter collecting on a time-barred debt. The Court concludes that, in the context of this case, the “will not sue” language could not plausibly mislead the least… Read More