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.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.35 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Unfair Practices

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.

6th Cir. Follows 3rd Cir.’s Douglass’ Glassine Windows Decision, Expands it to Text that Bleeds Through an Envelope

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Cagayat v. United Collection Bureau, Inc, No. 19-3431, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7234 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit adopted and expanded the Third Circuit’s  Douglass decision to apply to an enclosed letter’s text that bleeds through an envelope. The Letters attached as exhibits do not utterly discredit Cagayat's assertion that the… Read More

7th Cir. Rejects “Benign Language” Exception to Prohibition Against Language on Dunning Letters’ Envelopes

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Preston v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 18-3119, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a ‘benign language’ exception to section 1692f(8), finding that an envelope’s label “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” potentially violated the FDCPA. Following his receipt of the letter, Mr. Preston filed this action in which he… Read More

3rd Cir. Extends Douglass “Glassine Window” FDCPA Case to QR Codes on the Outside of Envelopes

by Scott J. Hyman |

In DiNaples v. MRS BPO, LLC, No. 18-2972, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23937 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2019), the Court of Appeals extended its Douglass decision to QR codes. There is no dispute that that provision plainly prohibits the QR code. Still, as other courts have observed, § 1692f(8) is rather expansive when read literally. It would seemingly prohibit including… Read More

District Court (Ala.) Says FDCPA’s “Catch-all” Provision under Section 1692f Has Limitations

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Cooper v. Atl. Credit & Fin., No. 2:18-cv-01254-JHE, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79011, at *15-16 (N.D. Ala. May 10, 2019), Judge England held that the FDCPA's "catch-all" provision under 1692f has limitations where allegedly offending conduct is expressly permitted under another section of the FDCPA. While Cooper cites a few cases standing for the proposition that certain conduct may… Read More

District Court (D.C.) Says Debt Collector’s Failure to Report Account as “Disputed” Could Violate Multiple Provisions of the FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Ill.) Denies Debt Collector’s MSJ Based on Call Pattern and Specifics of Conversations

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Nev.) Follows ACA Int’l and Tosses TCPA Case; Says Part of FDCPA Harassment Claim May Proceed

by Rebecca Snavely Saelao |

In Marshall v. CBE Group, Inc., 2018 WL 1567852, at *4–8 (D.Nev., 2018), Judge Navarro followed the ACA Int'l decision and, in the absence of interpretative guidelines by the FCC, applied the TCPA's "plain language". In light of this ruling, the Court will not stray from the statute's language which “mandates that the focus be on whether the equipment has… Read More

2d Cir. Says Same Conduct Can Violate Multiple Sections of the FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Arias v. Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP, 2017 WL 5330081 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did not adopt the argument adopted by other courts that the FDCPA's "general" prohibitions cannot provide an additional basis for liability when there already is a "specific" prohibition set forth elsewhere in the FDCPA. Franklin Arias claims… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Rooker-Feldman Claim Bars Debt Collection Misrepresentation Claim; FDCPA’s “Wrong Venue” Prohibition Does Not Apply to Post-Judgment Execution

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Muhammad v. Reese Law Group, APC,  2017 WL 4557194, at *5 (S.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Anello held that alleged mispresentations made in a debt collection complaint were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Here, the Court finds Plaintiff's misrepresentation and over-collection claim is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff argues she “does not challenge the validity of the 2001 money judgment,” thus Rooker-Feldman is… Read More

11th Cir. Says Debt Collector’s V/M was a “Communication ” under the FDCPA, But Debt Collector Complied with the Act By Leaving Company Name and Purpose of the Call

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Hart v. Credit Control, LLC, 2017 WL 4216029, at *3–4 (11th Cir. 2017), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit provided guidance on leaving voicemails for debtors: We find that this voicemail, and other voicemails like it, constitute a communication within the meaning of the FDCPA. Specifically, we hold that a voicemail can, and will, be considered a communication… Read More

1 2 3 … 8