Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.64 -- Defenses -- "Reverse" Attorneys' Fees

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 Chacker v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 4474732, at *7 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2018), the Court of Appeal declined to award reverse attorneys' fees under the Rosenthal Act. Plaintiff's operative complaint alleged, in its third cause of action, that Chase engaged in unlawful debt collection practices in violation of the Rosenthal Act and an analogous federal statute. We… Read More

In Forto v. Capital One Bank, N.A., No. 14-cv-05611-JD (MEJ), 2017 WL 4168529 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2017), Magistrate Judge James noted the different standards applicable to “reverse” attorneys fees under the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act, finding that “reverse” attorneys’ fees were not due a debt collector under the FDCPA but were due the debt collector under the Rosenthal… Read More

In Diaz v. First Marblehead Corp., 2016 WL 736361, at *7 (11th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the trial court's ruling imposing reverse attorneys' fees against a debtor. Although there was no evidence that Diaz, herself, had acted in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment when she brought the lawsuit, the magistrate… Read More

In Montgomery v. GCFS, Inc., 2015 WL 3653314, at *1-2 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2015), the Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of a Rosenthal Act claim premised on an alleged prohibition against assignment of a debt from a CFL holder to an unlicensed entity.  I've changed the order of the opinion somewhat for brevity here; but, the facts were as follows: In… Read More

In Flint v. Beneficial Financial I Inc., 2013 WL 552622 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Burrell declined to award reverse-attorneys’ fees under the FDCPA without more than conclusory statements of bad faith. Further, Defendant has not shown that sanctions should be awarded under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), which requires “a finding by the court that [Plaintiff's FDCPA claim] was brought in bad… Read More

In Arutyunyan v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, 2013 WL 500452 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Gutierrez found that Plaintiff’s counsel’s pleadings did not arise to the level of misconduct that would allow an award of reverse attorneys’ fees under FCRA and the FDCPA, but did under other federal law. Under FCRA, the Court explained: As a threshold matter, § 1681n(c) imposes attorneys' fees… Read More

The CFPB's and FTC's amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to overturn the Marx decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where Ms. Marx sued General Revenue Corporation under the FDCPA.  Marx lost.  The 10th Circuit ruled that Marx was responsible for paying more than $4,500 to cover the debt collector’s litigation costs, even though she… Read More

SCOTUS granted cert in the Marx v. General Revenue Corporation case that we reported on previously.  (http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=2371)  SCOTUS' review will address whether a prevailing defendant in an FDCPA matter can recover its costs under FRCP 54(d) or must prove, in order to recover such costs, whether the Action was filed in bad faith by the Plaintiff, as required by 15 USC… Read More

In Rodriguez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 211511 (W.D.Wash. 2012), Judge Martinez held that a debt collector’s claim for ‘reverse attorneys’ fees’ arising from the debtor’s bad-faith filing of an FDCPA claim must be brought as an attorney fee motion, not as a separate counter-claim.    A few courts have allowed § 1692(k)(a)(3) counterclaims. See… Read More

1 2