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.

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 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 Prosser v. Navient Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 5168635 (N.D. Cal. 2015), Judge Conti found that a student loan lender conducted a reasonable re-investigation under FCRA after the Plaintiff claimed to be a victim of identity theft. Parties agree that there is only a private right of action to pursue claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b), under §§ 1681n &… Read More

In Gustafson v. Experian Info. Solutions Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01453-ODW EX, 2015 WL 3477071, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2015), Judge Wright granted summary judgment to a debt collector on a Plaintiff's FCRA claim, alleging that the debt was "double-reported". “[S]ummary judgment is not precluded altogether on questions of reasonableness,” but “[i]t is only appropriate ‘when only one conclusion about the… Read More

In Horsch v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 2015 WL 1344836 (E.D.Pa. 2015), Judge Yohn found that furnishers had properly reported accounts post-bankruptcy where the debtors had made post-bankruptcy payments.  Judge Yohn explained the standards for a furnishers’ re-investigation even where it was conceded that the furnishers’ re-investigation was reasonable. The court cautioned that this issue “is normally a question for… Read More

In Davidson v. Capital One, N.A., 2014 WL 6682532 (S.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Altonago found that a FCRA Plaintiff must prove inaccuracy in the credit reporting, even if a furnisher did not conduct an adequate re-investigation. Capital One argues an FCRA plaintiff must establish the underlying information reported to the CRA is incorrect. (See Capital One Mot. 10). The Davidson Response… Read More

In Desselle v. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC,  2014 WL 4635545 (E.D.La. 2014), Judge Fallon dismissed a FCRA claim against an automobile finance company. Here, Desselle does not allege that the three credit reporting agencies notified Ford Credit of the dispute. He merely asserts that he himself notified the three credit reporting agencies and Ford Credit, and that Ford Credit failed to… 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 a Bulletin and Report, the CFPB warned furnishers of consumer data information to consumer reporting agencies that they must comply with FCRA's re-investigation requirements.  And, in a shot across the bow, the CFPB stated that merely deleting a trade-line does not by itself comply with FCRA's reinvestigation requirements.  The CFPB warned: A furnisher should not assume that it ceases to… 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 McDonald v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 858197 (W.D.Wash. 2013), Judge Lasnik found a triable issue of fact as to a furnisher’s reinvestigation under FCRA, finding that the furnisher can not rely solely on the information provided to it by the CRA when the furnisher has other information available to it to investigate. Plaintiff bears the burden of showing… Read More

1 2 3 4 5