Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Debt Collection

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.

California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation has filed a notice of proposed rulemaking on April 23, 2021 for the Debt Collection Licensing Act (DCLA). The proposed regulations are to be added in Title 10, California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 11.3 “Debt Collection Licensing Act.” A copy of the proposed rulemaking text is here. The proposed regulations cover: requirements to… Read More

In Chunlei Guo v. Moorpark Recovery Services, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 112, the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five reversed a postjudgment order denying attorney fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 685.040, which authorizes the recovery of attorney fees incurred for enforcement of a judgment when the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney… Read More

In Bank of Am., N.A. v. Byrd, No. G056792, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7176 (Oct. 28, 2019), Bank of America, N.A. (the Bank) sued Pamela K. Byrd to recover over $32,000 in credit card debt. The trial court found the Bank's last credit card statement to Byrd constituted a final rendering of the account, and Byrd impliedly agreed to pay… Read More

In Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins, No. D072299, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 603, at *12-15 (Ct. App. July 1, 2019), the California Court of Appeal addressed the evidence necessary to prove up a credit card debt in a debt collection action. Assuming without  deciding that California law applies, a party may accept a contract by conduct, as well as… Read More

In Western World Insurance Company v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2018 WL 259309, at *1–2 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment in favor of a D&O carrier who rescinded a policy due to the insured Debt Collection Agency's misrepresentation in the policy application. In August 2013, FBI agents executed a… Read More

In Volvo Financial Services, Inc. v. Williamson, 2017 WL 4708136, at *3 (S.D.Miss., 2017), Judge Guirola held that the statute of limitations on a promissory note secured by a number of tractors did not accrue until all of the repossessed collateral was sold, due to a cross-collateralization clause in the note. The most reasonable interpretation of the statute when applied… Read More

In Direct Capital Corporation v. Brooks, 2017 WL 3725649, at *1 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision that "a debt incurred by an attorney-spouse for office computer equipment was for the necessaries of life for that particular marriage, in part because that spouse's law practice generated community property income".  The facts were as… Read More

In Rodrigo v. Barclays Bank Delaware, 2017 WL 1155373, at *4–5 (S.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Houston dismissed an FDCPA case grounded in allegedly suing on a stale debt and filing a false proof of service in the underlying action. Construing all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that the state law collection action brought against Rodrigo… Read More

 In Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron, 2017 WL 634714 (Cal.App. 6 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal found that an Open Book Account claim sounded in contract, and applied the contract's choice of law clause. This appeal arises out of a credit card debt collection action involving two credit cards. Appellant Professional Collection Consultants (PCC), as an assignee of the original… Read More

In Santander Bank, N.A. v. Moody Leasing, 2016 WL 3906808, at *1-2 (W.D.Mo., 2016), Judge Kays entered judgment for an automobile finance company on tow-truck leases, despite the fact that the collateral had not yet been liquidated.  The facts were as follows: On February 14, 2011, Santander,1 a Delaware-based bank, entered into a loan agreement with Moody Leasing. The agreement… Read More

In Grochowski v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., 2014 WL 1516586 (W.D.Wash. 2014), Judge Zilly addressed the impact of a “charge-off” on a creditor and debt collector’s right to collect the contractual rate and the state pre-judgment interest rate. Plaintiff contends that, in “charging off” plaintiff's debt, Capital One waived its right to collect interest at the contractual rate and, as… Read More

In Hadsell v. CACH, LLC, 2014 WL 497433 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Lorenz, within the context of a motion for reconsideration, granted partial summary judgment and denied partial summary judgment to an FDCPA defendant alleged to have violated a Cease-and-Desist letter from the debtor and to have violated the FDCPA by praying for 10% interest in the Prayer for Relief in… Read More

In Clayton v. Aaron's Inc., 2013 WL 3148174 (E.D.Va. 2013), Judge Spencer addressed whether a consumer who received debt collection text messages stated a claim under the TCPA.  Judge Spencer held that the consumer could not. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) prohibits any person within the United States from making any call (or text message) to a cell phone number, other than for emergency purposes… Read More

In O'Bryne v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, 2013 WL 1223590 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Gonzales found that a debt collector’s lawsuit alleging claims for account stated and for common counts did not misstate the debt in violation of the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA.   Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to its first cause of action for violation of the FDCPA on… Read More

In a trio of cases, Benedict v. CACH, LLC, 2012 WL 5382255 (S.D. Cal. 2012), Odish v. CACH, LLC, 2012 WL 5382260 (S.D. Cal. 2012), and Jackson v. CACH, LLC, 2012 WL 5382257 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Battaglia held that a frequently-used Plaintiff’s trick stating that “Plaintiff takes no position on the validity of the debt” in support of Plaintiff’s FDCPA… Read More

In HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. v. Aguilar, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2012 WL 1813379 (Cal.Super.A.D. 2012), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court required the superior court clerk to enter default judgments in debt collection cases.  Once a default has been entered on proper service of process, no further prove-up is necessary and the court clerk’s requirement as a condition of… Read More

In American Exp. Bank, FSB v. Dalbis, 2011 WL 873512 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct. 2011), Judge Straniere rejected an application for default sought by a Bank against its customer on the basis that there might be a statute of limitations problem and the Bank had not properly proved up the instrument evidencing the debt. Having apparently just appeared at a high school production… Read More