Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.40 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Debt Collector's activities within 30 day period

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 Robertson v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., No. 1:19-cv-00749-DAD-SKO, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15768 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020), Judge Drozd dismissed an FDCPA overshadowing claim. AllianceOne contends the validation statement in its notice is not overshadowed or contradicted by other messages appearing in the notice. AllianceOne also argues that the least sophisticated debtor would not construe the notice to have demanded… Read More

In De Armas v. Financial Corp. of America, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 4922373 (S.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Martinez found that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by failing to give validation notices in Spanish, or when the debt collector included instructions in Spanish for Spanish speakers to call the debt collector.  In Ehrich v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 681 F.Supp.2d 265 (E.D.N.Y.2010), the District… Read More

In Pollard v. Law Office of Mandy L. Spaulding--- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 4402213 (1st Cir. 2014), the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals found that an attorneys' debt collection letter contained threats that overshadowed a consumer's 30-day right to dispute under the FDCPA. On October 23, 2012, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter (a copy of which appears… Read More

In Kennedy v. CompuCredit Holdings Corp., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 1284495 (M.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Adams found that an FDCPA Plaintiff stated a claim based on the theory that a Debt Buyer’s “Fresh Start” program violated the FDCPA since participation in the Program was conditioned on waiving certain rights available under the FDPCA, such as debt validation. Plaintiff Kennedy failed… Read More

In Seeley v. Nevada Ass'n Services, Inc., 2012 WL 295250 (D.Nev. 2012), Judge Navarro found that a 30-day validation letter contained ‘overshadowing’ language in potential violation of the FDPCA.  The offending language, contrasted against the 30-day validation period, was as follows:   If you want to resolve this matter before a Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien is recorded and sent… Read More

In Moscona v. California Business Bureau, Inc., 2011 WL 5085522 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Benitez granted summary judgment in favor of a debtor and against a debt collection agency on a number claims arising out of collection and reporting on a debt. Judge Benitez held that the debt collector’s reporting of the Account to the credit reporting agencies before it verified… Read More

In Seeley v. Nevada Ass'n Services, Inc., 2011 WL 4470840 (D.Nev. 2011), Judge Navarro held that the threat of a homeowners association lien being placed before the expiration of the 30-day validation expired overshadowed the consumer’s rights, constituting an FDCPA violation.  Judge Navarro explained:    Nevertheless, here, both the form and the substance of the letter overshadowed the required notice.… Read More

In Elliott v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 2010 WL 1495402 (S.D.Cal. 2010) Judge Sabraw applied the more stringent pleading standard of Iqbal and Twombly to find that a debt collector’s use of the term “Warning Notice” with its debt validation letter neither overshadowed the debtor’s validation rights nor constituted an unfair debt collection practice.    In two recent opinions, the… Read More

In Quale v. Unifund CCR Partners, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 338044 (S.D.Ala. 2010), Judge Granade addressed whether a debtor stated a claim under the FDCPA for the debt collector undertaking collection activities without validating the debt.  The debtor pleaded that he requested validation, but the debt collector did not provide same.  Although the debt collector undertook no further 'collection… Read More

In Reed v. Global Acceptance Credit Company, 2008 WL 3330165 (N.D.Cal. 2008), Judge Whyte rejected plaintiff's claim under Foti v. NCO Fin. Systems, Inc. 424 F.Supp.2d 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) and Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs, Inc. 337 F.Supp.2d 1104 (C.D.Cal. 2005) that a debt collector's failure to identify itself as a "debt collector" under 15 U.S.C. 1692e(11) violated that provision.  Here,… Read More