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

In Shuler v. Ingram & Associates, 2010 WL 1833626 (N.D.Ala. 2010), Judge Kallon addressed what constitutes harassment, both in substance and frequency.   As to substance, Judge Kallon listed to audiotapes and found that testiness and advising a consumer of the consequences of their (in)action did not violate the FDCPA.   Section 1692d(2) forbids debt collectors from “engaging in any conduct… Read More

In Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc. 2010 WL 103653 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a complaint in a collection lawsuit is a debt collection "communication" to the debtor which, if false, may violate the FDCPA.   The complaint alleged pre-assignment interest at 18%, which was not an illegal charge in violation Washington state's usury law because… Read More

In Nichols v. GC Services, LP, 2009 WL 3488365 (D. Ariz. 2009), the United States District Court for Arizona addressed purported threats regarding what the debt collector may or may not do:   In determining whether a threat has been made, “the conditional nature of a statement, such as the use of the words ‘may’ or ‘possible,’ does not negate… Read More

In Ruth v. Triumph Partners, Ltd., --- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 2487092 (7th Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debt collector’s inclusion of a Gramm-Leach-Bliley privacy notice with its debt validation letter violated the FDCPA.  The Court of Appeals explained:    Upon receiving and reading the collection letter and the notice, the only… Read More

In Savage v. NIC, Inc. 2009 WL 2259726 (D.Ariz. 2009) , Judge Teilborg explained the quantum of evidence necessary for a finding of harassment, as well as whether 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4), which prohibits a debt collector from representing or implying  to a plaintiff that nonpayment will result in garnishment of wages unless such action is lawful and the debt… Read More

In Gonzalez v. Kay, --- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 2357015 (5th Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit attempted to justify the various decisions involving whether a collection letter on law firm letterhead requires actual attorney involvement in the collection process.  The Court of Appeals explained, in part,   In sum, the main difference between the cases… Read More

In Smith v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. 2009 WL 1675078 (E.D.Pa. 2009), Judge Rufe addressed whether a debtor stated claim under the FDCPA arising out of a debt collector’s use of a “Privacy Notice”, which stated:   Information We Collect:  We collect non-public personal information about you from the following sources:  From you on applications or other forms, over the… Read More

In Hahn v. Triumph Partnerships, LLC, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the FDCPA's prohibition against "false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt" under 15 U.S.C. 1692e requires materiality.  In ruling on whether the debt collector had properly disclosed the debt and attendant interest, the Court of Appeals… Read More

In Boyle v. Arrow Financial Services, LLP, 2008 WL 4447727 (N.D.Cal. 2008), Judge Hamilton addressed whether a debt collector violates the FDCPA by including the following language in a collection letter: The letter also stated: “As required by law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting… Read More