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.

District Court (New Jersey) Holds Name of Debt Collector Visible Through Glassine Window Not a Violation of the FDCPA Where an Internet Search Would Disclose The Debt Collector Was in The Debt Collection Business

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Valentine v. Unifund CCR, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44747, the court granted a motion to dismiss on the putative class action claim that the debt collector’s name being visible through a glassine window violated the FDCPA’s prohibition on using a debt collector’s name unless the name does not indicate it is in the debt collection business: As discussed,… Read More

District Court (Ga.) Refuses to Enforce FDCPA’s Venue Provision for Commercial Transaction

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Iou Cent., Inc. v. Shore Appliance Connection Inc., No. 1:20-cv-2367-MLB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50674 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 18, 2021), Judge Brown found the FDCPA’s venue provision inapplicable to a dispute because the transaction was commercial and not consumer. Shore Defendants argue the applicable statute is the venue provision in [*6]  the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"): 15 U.S.C.… Read More

6th Circuit Court of Appeals Joins 7th Circuit in Rejecting “Benign” Language Exception to 15 USC § 1692f(8), Contrary to the 5th and 8th Circuits.

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Donovan v. FirstCredit, Inc., No. 20-3485, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39798 (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2020) the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed the trial court’s ruling granting FirstCredit’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and in doing so, rejected a “benign language” exception to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8) of  the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).… Read More

7th Cir. Says Reporting Multiple Debts Rather than Aggregating into Single Account Did Not Violate FCRA/FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

  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

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

1 2 3 … 8