CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.42 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Form: 30-Day Validation Notice Archives

9th Cir. Says Request for Contact in Validation Letter Did Not Overshadow 30-day Notice

by Scott J. Hyman | May 2, 2018

In Stuppiello v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., 2018 WL 2015486, at *1–2 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a request for contact in a validation letter did not overshadow the 30-day notice. Stuppiello complains of a letter in which the Defendant-Appellee informed him that a $612.32 debt “[was] due in full.” In that… Read More

District Court (Va.) Says Debt Collector’s Validation Violated the FDCPA Because It Omitted Statute’s Term “By the Collector” as to Who Would Assume the Debt to be Valid in the Absence of Dispute

by Scott J. Hyman | September 25, 2014

In DeCapri v. Law Offices of Shaprio Brown & Alt, LLP, 2014 WL 4699591 (E.D.Va. 2014), Judge Hudson found a debt collection law firm’s FDCPA validation non-compliant with the FDCPA. Among other violations, Judge Hudson stated: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) by failing to include “by the debt collector” or similar language in the letter's validation… Read More

9th Circuit Explains Camacho — Says Validation Notice that Implies, but Does Not Require, Dispute to be in Writing Passes Muster under FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman | June 11, 2012

In Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, A Law Corp. --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 2054640 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA if his letter starting collection efforts states expressly that the debtor must dispute the debt in writing within 30 days or have the debt deemed valid. Camacho… Read More

Third Circuit Disagrees with Ninth Circuit — Says Communications Between Counsel Subject to FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman | January 13, 2011

In Allen v. LaSalle Bank, -- F.3d – (3d Cir. 2011), here, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 934-39 (9th Cir. 2007) and found inter-counsel communications are subject to the FDCPA, explaining: As noted above, the issue here is whether § 1692f(1)… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds Failure to Plead Either Absence of Meaningingful Involvement or a Camacho Validation Violation

by Scott J. Hyman | August 19, 2010

In Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 2010 WL 3238969 (N.D.Cal.), Judge Fogel held that, under Iqbal and Twombly, an FDCPA plaintiff failed to state a claim for lack of meaningful attorney involvement or for violating the Camacho standard for debt validation warnings. As to the former, Judge Fogel explained, Plaintiff contends that her allegations that (1) Defendants sent the… Read More

2d Circuit Says Debt Collector Can’t Sue During Validation Period — Unless It Explains Itself

by Scott J. Hyman | January 14, 2010

In Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon, P.C., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 104570 (2d Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “service of process during the validation period must, at a minimum, be preceded or accompanied by notice to the consumer clarifying that the lawsuit does not in any way alter the information contained in… Read More

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.42 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Form: 30-Day Validation Notice

Subscribe to Consumer Finance