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.37 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Required Notices from the Debt Collector -- Federal

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 (Cal.) Says Dunning Letter Adequately Disclosed Original Creditor

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Lenzini v. DCM Servs., LLC, No. 4:20-cv-07612-YGR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100007 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2021), Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed an FDCPA claim. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lenzini avers that the letter fails to satisfy the FDCPA where the letter (1) does not specifically use any modifying language to denote that Capitol One is the current creditor, and (2)… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Debt Collector’s Validation Properly Identified Original Creditor

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Henson v. Nationwide Credit, No. CV 20-11402 PA (MRWx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68689 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2021), Judge Anderson dismissed an FDCPA case challenging a debt collector’s disclosures in its validation letter. In determining whether conduct violates [the FDCPA, courts within the Ninth Circuit] undertake objective analysis of the question whether the 'least sophisticated debtor would likely… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says E-mail of FDCPA’s Validation Notice is Not Prohibited by E-Sign

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Greene v. TrueAccord, Case 3:19-cv-06651-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2020), here, Judge Chen dismissed an FDCPA case premised on the Plaintiff's claim that the defendant could not e-mail the FDCPA's validation notice. Ms. Greene contends that TA violated the FDCPA by sending her the validation notice by email – as part of the initial communication – without complying first with the… Read More

District Court (Fla.) Says Demand for Immediate Payment or Debt Collector Would Be “Forced to take additional action” Overshadowed Debtors’ 30-day Validation Rights

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (N.Y.) Finds that Debt Collector’s Letter Adequately Identified Creditor By Acronym

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (NY) Holds that FDCPA Class-Rep. Has Standing Following Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Because She Adequately Disclosed the Claim in Her Schedules; Says Collection Letter was Deceptive Because it Failed to Disclose that Interest Would Accrue

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Ore.) Says Law Firm Does Not Have to Send Another FDCPA Validation Letter When Law Firm Changes its Name For Reasons Unrelated to Debt Collection, but, Even it Did, Law Firm’s Validation Letter Properly Disclosed Whether Interest Did, or Would, Accrue

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

7th Cir. Says that Debt Collection Law Firm Who Included 30-day Debt Validation in its Debt Collection Complaint Violated FDCPA Because Debtor Would Be Confused Between Validation Date and Time to Answer the Complaint

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

9th Cir. Says Context Matters in FDCPA Communications; Least Sophisticated Consumer Would Have Known that V/M Message was from Debt Collector Based on History of Interaction between Debt Collector and Debtor

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Cal.) Says FDCPA Debt Validation Was Proper and Properly Sent (Even Though Not Received); Says Triable Issue of Fact on Plaintiff’s TCPA Claim

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

1 2 3