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 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

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

In Daubert v. NRA Group., LLC, 2017 WL 2836808, at *4–5 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a medical debt servicer did not meet its burden of demonstrating that it or its assignor received consent. The Sixth Circuit found prior express consent where the plaintiffs gave their cell numbers to a hospital-intermediary in… Read More

In  Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, the SCOTUS held that allowing bankrupt debtors to invoke the FDCPA would upset a “delicate balance” and “authorize a new significant bankruptcy-related remedy in the absence of language in the [Bankruptcy] Code providing for it.”  Instead, barring debt collectors from filing stale claims would require creditors to investigate the merits of affirmative defenses. “The upshot… Read More

In Deaguero v. Mountain Lion Acquisitions, Inc., 2016 WL 7030364 (2016), the California Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision found that the CFL does not prohibit the sale of debt to an unlicensed entity. Deaguero's claims depend upon his construction of section 22340, subdivision (a). Specifically, his claim that Mountain Lion violated the FDCPA and RFDCPA is based on the… Read More

The Conference on Consumer Finance Law just published two articles on the FDCPA by Severson & Werson. Hyman & Kenney, Judicial Isolation of the Third Circuit’s “Glassine Window” FDCPA Decision in Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 69 Conf. Cons. Fin. L. Q. 142 (Fall 2016):  here  Hyman & Kenney, The Effect of the FDCPA’s Class-Action Penalty Cap on Class Certification, 69… Read More

In Anenkova v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, 2016 WL 4379296, at *5–7 (E.D.Pa., 2016), Judge Savage recognized that he was bound by Douglass, but nevertheless recognized a benign language exception and found that a debt collector's disclosure of a bar code did not violate the FDCPA. Having recognized a benign language exception, we turn to whether the exception applies to… Read More

In Johnson-Morris v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2016 WL 3671468, at *5-6 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Kocoras denied an auto finance company's motion to dismiss a Plaintiff's FDCPA class action alleging that the Company kept a portion of "convenience fees" that were paid to pay-by-phone vendor.  The Plaintiff alleged: Western Union allegedly “kept a portion of the fees paid by Plaintiff… Read More

1 2 3 4 8