Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.60 -- Defenses -- Statutory Safe Harbor for Bona Fide Errors -- 15 Day Right to Cure

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 Timlick v. Ncb Mgmt. Servs., No. A152467, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4895 (July 23, 2019), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision applied the Rosenthal Act’s cure provision to a type-size violation. Plaintiff argues that section 1788.30(d)'s cure provision does not apply to NCB's type-size violation for the following reasons. First, section 1788.30(d) was repealed when the… Read More

In Timlick v. Nat'l Enter. Sys., No. A154235, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3198 (May 7, 2019), the California Court of Appeal found that a type-size error was able to be cured under the Rosenthal Act’s safe harbor. While, strictly speaking, the legislative history of the Consumer Collection Notice law has no bearing in discerning the legislative intent of section… Read More

In Romero v. Department Stores National Bank, 2018 WL 1079728, at *1 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in an unpublished decision that a TCPA plaintiff had Spokeo standing. The district court erred in concluding that Romero lacked standing under Article III to bring a TCPA claim. The district court did not have the benefit of Van… Read More

In Watkins v. Investment Retrievers, Inc., 2018 WL 558833, at *5–6 (E.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court dismissed a Rosenthal Act case based on the 15-day cure right that was exercised by the debt collector. IRI’s second argument has merit. California Civil Code section 1788.30(d) shields from liability a debt collector who “within 15 days either after discovering a violation which is able… Read More

In Afewerki v. Anaya Law Group, 2017 WL 3567829, at *4–5 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a misstatement of the debt in a debt collection complaint was material. We agree and conclude that Anaya Law Group's $3,000 overstatement of the principal due in the state court complaint,2 exacerbated by the statement of an… Read More

On the same day that Judge Kelley issued the Velasquz decision (www.calautofinance.com/?p=1958), Judge Doty held the opposite in Carpenter v. RJM Acquisitions, LLC -- F.Supp.2d --, 2011 WL 2148382 (D. Minn. 2011): Carpenter failed to follow the appropriate statutory procedure to dispute the debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (outlining steps for consumer to dispute debt). If the consumer does not… Read More

In Velazquez v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 2011 WL 2135633 (E.D.Pa. 2011), Judge Kelley held that a debtor is not required to first dispute the debt before undertaking legal action:    NCO argues that Velazquez's suit is improperly before us because a plaintiff must invoke the dispute procedures of § 1692(g) prior to taking legal action. In support of its… Read More