CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.37 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Required Notices from the Debt Collector -- Federal

In McCray v. Deitsch & Wright, No. 8:18-cv-731-EAK-SPF, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23516 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2019), Judge Kovachevisch found that a 30-day validation letter overshadowed the debtor’s validation rights by including language stating that “Be advised if we do not receive payment promptly we will be forced to take additional action to recover the subject amounts.” After a… Read More

In Deleon v. Action Collection Agency of Boston, 2018 WL 2089343 (S.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Abrams found that a debt collector’s dunning letter identified the creditor properly when it used the creditor’s acronym. The fact that the Letter identifies the creditor by an acronym does not alter this conclusion. To comply with the FDCPA, “a creditor may use the name under… Read More

In Roth v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., 2018 WL 718402, at *4–6 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Seybert denied a debt collector's motion to dismiss an FDCPA class action.  First, Judge Seybert held that the Plaintiff's bankruptcy did not deprive her of standing to sue. Here, after receiving the Letter, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy but did not initially disclose her FDCPA claim… Read More

In Huffington v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C., 2017 WL 6626317, at *4 (D.Or., 2017), Judge Acosta granted summary judgment to a debt collection law firm who had changed its name during the course of collecting on a particular debt. Viewing the instant facts through the eyes of the least sophisticated debtor, Heffington's argument here fails for three reasons. First, with… Read More

In Marquez v. Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., 2016 WL 4651403, at *4 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found a debt collection law firm's complaint deceptive. Paragraph 12 is misleading to the unsophisticated consumer both as to the proper timing to respond to the complaint and as to the manner of response. A plain reading… Read More

In Davis v. Hollins Law, 2016 WL 4174747, at *4–5 (9th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector's identification of itself in a  voicemail message complied with the FDCPA because a least sophisticated debtor would have known who the call was from in light of prior settlement discussions between the debtor and… Read More

In Chiba v. Bayview Loan Servicing, Inc., 2016 WL 2593979, at *3-4 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Benitez granted summary judgment to a debt collector on the FDCPA Plaintiff's claim of improper debt validation. Plaintiff argues that she disputed the debt and requested validation from Bayview as early as November 14, 2012, yet she never received validation. She argues that because Bayview sent… Read More

In Janetos v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 2016 WL 1382174, at *4-5 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debt collection law firm failed to clearly identify the creditor in its debt collection validation letter and, accordingly, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate materiality by extrinsic evidence. It is true that for claims… Read More

In Lopez v. Mid–America Accounts Control Bureau, 2014 WL 6908140 (W.D.Mo. 2014), the District Court granted summary judgment to an FDCPA defendant whose voicemail message to the debtor did not identify the call as being from a debt collector. Plaintiff claims Defendant's single voicemail on May 10, 2013, violated the FDCPA because the caller did not identify herself as a debt collector.… Read More

In Hagler v. Credit World Services, Inc., Judge Hagler found that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by leaving a single voicemail message for the debtor. The facts of this case are few and undisputed. Defendant Credit World Services is a debt collector. On June 11, 2013, Bill Jackson, an employee of defendant, called plaintiff and spoke to him… Read More