Showing 32 posts in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Tips for Loan Servicers on Defending Consumer Claims in Federal Court and Making Successful Article III Standing Challenges

November 1, 2024 by Geoffrey K. Milne

Loan servicers and their counsel are often sued by consumers during contested mortgage foreclosure proceedings. The United States Supreme Court’s opinions in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins[1] and TransUnion v. Ramirez[2] continue to be an important precedent in defending consumer claims. More ›

3 Key Takeaways and Collection Agency Industry Insights from the NACARA Conference

October 9, 2024 by Bonnie E. Dye

Last week, the North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association (NACARA) hosted its annual conference at the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s Sacramento office. The event served as a platform for state regulators and collection agency representatives to discuss the latest challenges and emerging trends affecting the industry. More ›

Uniformity Achieved: Third Circuit Rules There is No Written Requirement to Dispute Validity of a Debt Under FDCPA

April 2, 2020 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc decision in Riccio v. Sentry Credit, overturning Graziano v. Harrison, after finding that there is no written dispute requirement in Section 1692g(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the court, this decision ends "a circuit split and restores national uniformity to the meaning of §1692g." Moreover, the decision applies retroactively to any claim still open on the issue, thus closing the chapter on a written requirement for Section 1692g. More ›

Second Circuit Re-Emphasizes that FDCPA Claims Must Allege a Material Representation

December 16, 2019 by Fernando C. Rivera-Maissonet

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently took the opportunity to apply its 2018 holding in Cohen v. Rosicki, which had held that a consumer pursuing a claim for violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a material misrepresentation. Materiality depends on "whether the false statement would frustrate a consumer's ability to intelligently choose his or her response," or if the representation "could mislead the debtor as to the negate and legal status of the underlying debt," or "could impede the consumer's ability to respond to or dispute collection." More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split, Applies Occurrence Rule to FDCPA Statute of Limitations

December 11, 2019 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Earlier this year, this blog reported on the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in circuits on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) statute of limitations. This week, in an 8:1 opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations in the FDCPA begins to run when the violation occurs, not when the violation is discovered. In doing so, they overturned rulings by the Fourth and Ninth Circuit, which had held the FDCPA's statute of limitations was subject to equitable tolling. More ›

FDCPA Claims Dismissed As a Result of Plaintiff's Bad Faith Bankruptcy Conduct

September 25, 2019 by Samuel C. Bodurtha

In Vedernikov v. Atl. Credit & Fin., Inc., (Vedernikov I), the U.S. District Court of New Jersey granted the defendant Midland Funding's motion to dismiss, which successfully argued the plaintiff should be estopped from bringing FDCPA claims that he failed to disclose during a bankruptcy action from which he had been discharged. After Midland Funding filed its motion to dismiss in Vedernikov I, the same Court also issued an Order to Show Cause and ultimately dismissed Vedernikov v. Oliphant Financial, LLC (Vedernikov II), another matter brought by the same plaintiff. More ›

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Plaintiff Avila’s Challenge to the Safe Harbor She Established in Avila I

June 20, 2019 by Fernando C. Rivera-Maissonet

We previously discussed Avila v. Reliant (Avila II) and U.S. District Court Judge Spatt’s dismissal of a consumer’s attempt to sue on the “safe harbor” language she helped establish in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates (Avila I). As predicted, Avila II was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, the Court did not address Judge Spatt’s reasoning for the dismissal. More ›

SCOTUS Determines Foreclosure Firm is Not a Debt Collector Under the FDCPA's Primary Definition

March 22, 2019 by Maura K. McKelvey

Less than three months after hearing oral arguments in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Case No. 17-1307, the United States Supreme Court held, in a 9-0 decision, that a business engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA, "the Act"), except for the limited prohibitions set forth in 1692(f)(6). The decision provides helpful guidance to law firms and loan servicers who pursue nonjudicial foreclosures. More ›

The Third Circuit Takes a More Expansive Approach to What Constitutes a Debt Collector under the FDCPA

March 4, 2019 by John P. Ryan

On February 22, 2019, the Third Circuit in Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, issued a decision that expands the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) definition of the term "debt collector" to any entity that acquires debt for the purpose of collection, but outsources the actual debt collection activity. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Resolve Circuit Split on When the Limitations Period for FDCPA Claims Should Start

February 28, 2019 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

As we predicted last year, the United States Supreme Court earlier this week granted Plaintiff's petition for certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in the circuits on whether the statute of limitations for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim begins when the alleged violation occurred (known as the "occurrence rule") or when the consumer discovers the alleged violation (known as the "discovery rule"). More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives