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.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.

  In Zablocki v. Merchs. Credit Guide Co., No. 19-2045, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23737 (7th Cir. July 28, 2020), the Court of Appeals dismissed an FDCPA claim premised on a debt collectors failure to aggregate debts into a single account when reporting to the CRAs. Viewing Merchants's separate reporting of debts from the perspective of an unsophisticated but reasonable… Read More

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

1 2 3 8