CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.43 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Validation Required in Response to Consumer

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.

Governor Gavin Newson approved SB 531 on October 4, 2021. The bill sponsored by Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) allows consumers to request verification that debt collectors collecting on delinquent debts have the authority to collect a debt and also prohibits a debt collector from making any written statements to a debtor in an attempt to collect a debt unless the… Read More

In Kozlowski v. Bank of America, 2018 WL 2096381 (E.D.Cal.), 4 (E.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court found that the Plaintiff failed to allege an FCRA claim against a furnished. Plaintiff fails, however, to adequately allege the second and third elements of a claim under § 1681s-2(b). Plaintiff does not allege in her complaint that a consumer reporting agency notified the furnisher—here, BANA—of… 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 Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 3440174 (6th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit purported to set a “baseline” of what the FDCPA requires as far as debt validation in response to a consumer dispute, but said that what validation is required depends on the circumstances. These cases… Read More

In Coats v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 2014 WL 545432 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Brennan dismissed an FDCPA Plaintiff’s claim that the debt collector failed to properly validate the debt, finding that the information that the debt collector provided to the debtor was sufficient under the FDCPA. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to cease collection efforts upon plaintiff disputing the alleged… Read More

In Himes v. Client Services Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 24258 (D.N.H. 2014), Judge Barbadoro rejected the contention that the FDCPA requires production of sworn account ledgers during the validation process. Finally, Himes alleges under § 1692g(b) that Schiff's method of validation is insufficient because the defendants never produced a sworn accounting ledger, affidavit, or signed loan agreement to prove… Read More

In Smith v. Hunt & Henriques, 2013 WL 6141416 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Lloyd granted summary judgment to a debt collection law firm who properly validated a debt following a debtor’s demand for validation. H & H says that it is a law firm that collects outstanding financial obligations referred to it by its clients. (Dkt. 48–1, Hunt Decl. ¶ 2).… Read More

In Kayan v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 2013 WL 1010554 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Bernal found no failure to validate under the FDCPA when the Plaintiff failed to dispute the claim within the statutory 30-days. The uncontroverted evidence is that Palisades sent Plaintiff an initial demand letter on April 8, 2010. (Braun Decl., ¶ 5). Palisades did not receive any response to… Read More

In Katzakian v. Collectibles Management Resources, 2013 WL 57712 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge O'Neill found that an FDCPA Plaintiff failed to state a claim for harassment under 1692d for continuing to collect after a dispute when the debt collector complied with post-dispute debt validation under 1692g. CMR summarizes that section 1692g(b) authorizes continued debt collection unless a consumer disputes in writing during the… Read More

In Jacques v. Solomon & Solomon P.C., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 3581172 (D.Del. 2012), Judge Andrews addressed a debt collector’s obligation to validate a debt both before and after a debtor’s dispute of the dispute. As to the first three allegations, each of which relate to the validity of the debt and whether Northland had the authority to attempt… Read More

In Rodriguez v. Discovery Bank, 2012 WL 1520073 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Moskowitz explained what validation is required by a debt collector in response to a consumer dispute.   Plaintiff misunderstands Defendants' duty with respect to verification of the debt. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that “verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in… Read More

In Grant v. Unifund CCR Partners, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 379911 (C.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Snyder granted summary judgment based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  A copy of the decision is here.   The Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court… Read More

In Donohue v. Nielson, --- P.3d ----, 2011 WL 1642914 (Wash.App. 2011), the Washington Court of Appeal found that successive debt collectors do not need to re-validate the debt; once is enough.  The Court of Appeal explained:   However, more recent cases have specifically disagreed. See Ditty v. CheckRite, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 1320, 1329 (D.Utah 1997) (“Section 1692g does not… Read More

In Sasscer v. Donnelly, 2011 WL 1522320 (M.D.Pa. 2011), Judge Munley explained what ‘validation’ is required in response to a consumer request under the FDCPA:   The Third Circuit, then, has found sufficient a verification that informs the debtor of “the amounts of his debts, the services provided to produce those debts,” and “the dates on which the debts were… Read More

In Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (D. Minn. 2010) , Judge Schiltz found that a debt collector does not violate the FDCPA by reporting an account to the Credit Reporting Agencies after a debtor demands validation without first validating the debt, explaining The Court rejects Edeh’s argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed debt to a consumer,… Read More

In Rudek v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C. 2009 WL 385804 (E.D.Tenn.2009), Judge Collier ruled on what constitutes proper verification of a debt in response to a debt collector’s 30 day letter under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Judge Collier held that independent validation requiring proving the merits of the obligation is not required:   Defendant contends it complied with… Read More