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 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

In Callahan v. Equifax Information Services LLC, 2013 WL 5503949 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Alsup found that Plaintiff could state a FCRA claim in an SSN-swap situation.  The proposed pleading alleged that Plaintiff’s credit reports indicated that a SunTrust mortgage account was associated with her. Plaintiff disputed the mortgage account and the CRAs notified SunTrust. Although plaintiff's SSN did not match… Read More

In Hillis v. Trans Union, LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 5272922 (E.D.Pa. 2013), Judge Davis allowed a FCRA claim to get past the pleading stage.  The dispute arose out of an automobile loan that Plaintiff and his ex-wife entered into during their marriage.In 2007, Plaintiff's marriage ended in divorce, and the Texas court's divorce decree awarded the underlying vehicle… Read More

In Mortimer v. Bank of America, N.A.  2012 WL 6218004 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Spero addressed the interplay between bankrupt debt and credit reporting, finding that Plaintiff stated no FCRA or CCRAA claim.  The facts were as follows: Plaintiff Mark Mortimer (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Bank of America, N.A., (“Defendant”) FN1 seeking redress for Defendant's alleged inaccurate reporting of his… Read More

In Morse v. USAA Federal Sav. Bank, 2012 WL 6020090 (D.Nev. 2012), Judge Dawson addressed a common credit reporting issue arising out of a dispute between former spouses over a credit card account.  The Plaintiff, the ex-wife, was an authorized user of a USAA Federal Savings Bank credit card initially issued to her former husband. Morse was divorced on March… Read More

In Harrold v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2012 WL 4097708 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Alsup found that FCRA still pre-empts other parts of the CCRAA that were not addressed by Gorman. The FCRA provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State ... relating to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer reporting… Read More

In Mortimer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 2012 WL 3155563 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Wilken addressed the impact of a now commonly-pleaded claim that a creditor continued to report late payments that were not made during a bankruptcy.  Judge Wilkens found that Plaintiffs failed to plead an inaccuracy – meaning that they actually made the payments during the bankruptcy… Read More

In Gauci v. Citi Mortg., 2012 WL 1535654 (C.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Otis Wright held that FCRA’s accuracy requirement is not designed to adjudicate a dispute between a furnisher, CRA, and a consumer. Plaintiff argues that “CMI had no right to have deemed Plaintiff a delinquent payer when CMI made the mistake of charging Plaintiff an incorrect amount of taxes.” (Opp'n… Read More

In Shap v. Capital One Financial Corp., 2012 WL 1080127 (E.D.Pa. 2012), Judge Rufe followed Saunders and Gorman to hold that a furnisher who fails, on re-investigation, to mark an account as ‘disputed’ can violate FCRA. In Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, the Ninth Circuit found the reasoning in Saunders persuasive, holding that a furnisher's failure to report that… Read More

In Reed v. First Premier Bank, 2011 WL 6153100 (D.S.D. 2011), Judge Schreier found for a furnisher against a consumer's claim that the furnisher failed to report the account as disputed.  Judge Schreier explained: A furnisher cannot be held liable under section 1681s–2(b) simply for failing to report that a debt is disputed. Rather, a furnisher may only be liable if the… Read More

1 2 3