During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Disputed Accounts

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 Chuluunbat v. Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC, No. 20 C 164, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128931 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2020), Judge Kocoras granted a furnisher’s motion to dismiss an FCRA claim. Given these letters, Cavalry argues that it was required to do nothing further than what it had already done to comply with its obligations under Section 1681s-2(b). Chuluunbat… Read More

In Hall v. Southwest Credit Sys., L.P., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73350, *5-11 (D.C. Dist. May 1, 2019), Judge Howell found that a debt collector's failure to report to the consumer reporting agencies that the account was "disputed" could violate multiple provisions of the FDCPA. This case concerns one allegation: The defendant reported a debt to credit bureaus that the… Read More

In Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2018 WL 2035315, at *5–7 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA when the debt collector receives an (untimely) dispute from a debtor in response to a 30-day validation letter and thereafter reports the account to a consumer reporting agency without reporting… Read More

In Fredrickson v. Cannon Federal Credit Union, 2017 WL 6558578, at *4 (D.N.M., 2017), Judge Brack granted summary judgment to a furnisher who allegedly failed to report a consumer's dispute as "disputed" because, Judge Brack said, the dispute was meritless. Furnishers can breach their § 1681s–2(b) duties if they fail to report the existence of a dispute because such an omission… Read More

In Hinkle v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 2016 WL 3672112, at *4-8 (C.A.11 (Ga.), 2016), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed summary judgment for a debt buyer on the plaintiff's reinvestigation under FCRA, finding that more investigation was required than checking the dispute against its electronic records. When the CRAs informed Midland that Hinkle disputed the GE/Meijer… Read More

In Powers v. Selcon Community Credit Union, et. al., 2016 WL 126739, at *4-5 (D.Or. 2016), Judge McShane denied summary judgment to a FCRA furnisher defendant on the reasonableness of its re-investigation.  The takeaways from the decision are four, from someone who has handled a number of such cases.  First, the decision demonstrates how granular these cases can get in terms of… Read More

In Vasquez-Estrada v. Collecto, Inc., 2015 WL 6163971, at *2 (D.Or., 2015), Judge Stewart addressed some FCRA rules for furnishers in the context of identity theft. Defendant also argues that plaintiff has been compensated for these same damages through his settlement with the CRAs in separate litigation. However, the settlement with the CRAs resolved only claims under the FCRA, not… Read More

In Calhoun v. Certegy Check Services, Inc., 2014 WL 4146886 (M.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Whittemore found that a Plaintiff stated a FCRA claim against a check services company for failing to report an account as ‘disputed’ during its reinvestigation. Plaintiff brought this action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt… Read More

In Seamans v. Temple University, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 658401 (3d Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed, in matters of first impression, the interplay between the Higher Education Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the responsibilities of an institution of higher education that furnishes information on student loan indebtedness to… Read More

In Landini v. FIA Card Services, National Association, 2014 WL 587520 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Judge Lloyd granted summary judgment on two matters filed by the Sagaria law group alleging that a debt collector’s affirmation of pre-bankruptcy historical reporting after bankruptcy was filed did not result in FCRA liability.  The facts were as follows: Landini opened a credit card account with… Read More

1 2 3