CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.34B -- False or Misleading Representations (Legal Status of Debt or Charges)

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 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 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 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 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 Coyne v. Midland Funding LLC, 2018 WL 3423469, at *2–3 (8th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that an FDCPA Plaintiff had pleaded a claim against a debt collector based on their claim that the debt collector's dunning letter had compounded interest in violation of state law and the contract forming the obligation. It is undisputed that Minnesota… Read More

In McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan PC, 2018 WL 3097153 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified when attorneys are engaged in debt collection under the FDCPA. Our decision in Ho does not, however, preclude FDCPA liability for an entity that seeks to collect a debt through a judicial foreclosure scheme that allows for deficiency… Read More

In Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC., 2018 WL 818004, at *3 (C.A.3 (N.J.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a letter that offered to "settle" a time-barred debt could be deceptive. Thus, Huertas stands for the proposition that debt collectors do not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) when they seek voluntary repayment of stale debts, so… Read More