Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Furnisher Reinvestigation

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 Leones v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, 2017 WL 6343622, at *3 (S.D.Fla., 2017), Judge Dimitrouleas dismissed an FCRA class action because the information reported was not inaccurate in the first instance. Here, the reported information regarding Plaintiff's mortgage loan account—that it was 120 days or more delinquent and that foreclosure proceedings were initiated—was both accurate and complete. The Court… Read More

In Daugherty v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 2017 WL 3172422, (4th Cir. July 24, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding of improper reinvestigation and willfulness against a furnisher, but found the punitive damages award to be constitutionally excessive. We must affirm the district court's judgment regarding Ocwen's liability for willful misconduct if there was sufficient… Read More

In Vandonzel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, et. al., No. 17-CV-01819-LHK, 2017 WL 3267571 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2017), Judge Koh denied a furnisher's FRCP 12b6 Motion in an FCRA case. However, Gorman does not support Chase’s argument that an investigation of disputed information is narrowly limited to the exact wording of the dispute letter. In Gorman, the Ninth Circuit… Read More

In Ritchie v. Lease Finance Group, LLC, et. al., 2017 WL 2963462, at *2 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that it was the substance of the reinvestigation, not the time spent on it, that matters under the FCRA. Ritchie argues that when Experian notified defendants that Ritchie's signature was disputed, FCRA required them… Read More

In Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 7323293, at *6–9 (S.D.Ga., 2016), Judge Wood found that a Furnisher's reinvestigation of a FCRA dispute was reasonable and that the Plaintiff had suffered no damages.    Boyd is a nuclear submarine missile technician, who executed a power of attorney authorizing his then-wife, Siana Boyd, “to borrow money and to execute in… Read More

In Aubert v. Russell Collection Agency, Inc. 2016 WL 5430184, at *2–3 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Magistrate Judge Patti held that a furnisher's "reinvestigation" requires a different kind of investigation (i.e. less) "validation" under the FDCPA. Whether verification is a requisite function in conducting a reasonable investigation?  Answering this question in the affirmative, Plaintiff cites a Senate Report, which provides:  "Currently, the… Read More

In Blakeney v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2016 WL 4270244, at *4–6 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Koh dismissed a FCRA claim grounded in debt collectors' reporting of an account passing through Chapter 13 bankruptcy. As to Plaintiff's first theory of liability, the FCRA requires a furnisher to “conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information” after the furnisher receives notice… Read More

In Maiteki v. Marten Transport Ltd., 2016 WL 3747396, at *1 (10th Cir.  2016), the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of a furnisher against a FCRA plaintiff's claim that the furnisher inadequately re-investigated a credit dispute.  The facts did not necessarily arise out of a consumer transaction.   Marten is a transportation company that employed… 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 Blakeney v. Experian Information Solutions, 2016 WL 1535085, at *1-2 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Koh grants a Motion to Dismiss filed by a FCRA furnisher who was alleged to have failed to properly re-investigate a dispute regarding an account that passed through Chapter 13. On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 5. “Chapter… Read More

1 2 3 4 5