Blog

Is a communication between a debt collector and a credit reporting agency a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” for purposes of the FDCPA? In a case in which the Eighth Circuit actually found against a debtor on her claim against a collection agency based on the FDCPA, the court nevertheless adopted a standard followed by other circuits in defining when a communication is “…in connection with the collection of any debt” for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. Sarah McIvor v. Credit Control Services, Inc., No. 14-1164 (December 4, 2014). Sarah McIvor alleged that she disputed a debt to […]

In the first U.S. case involving alleged FDCPA violations arising from use of modern technology that generated and disclosed an innocuous internal tracking number, which had no capacity to identify or expose the consumer’s personal financial information, collection agency urges the Third Circuit to reconsider its erroneous decision. Convergent Outsourcing filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc or Panel Rehearing (the “Petition”) with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, No. 13-3588, 2014 WL 4235570, — F.3d — (3d Cir. 2014).  The Collection Agency requested that the Third Circuit revisit the appellate decision issued in Douglass by the three-judge panel just two weeks ago, which ruled that the disclosure […]

A U.S. Circuit Court decision this summer took an extraordinary step when it held that filing a proof of claim on time barred debt is conduct that violates the FDCPA. At the time, attorneys close to both bankruptcy and FDCPA proceedings warned that it would touch off a very real firestorm in that sector. That has proven to be quite true. It has been several months since the Eleventh Circuit handed down its decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, holding that filing a proof of claim on “time-barred” debt violates the FDCPA. The request for rehearing was denied. A Multitude of Crawford-type Claims While it was a safe bet a new round of […]

What Debt Collectors Need to Know The Second Circuit’s recent decision in Hooks v. Forman has received quite a bit of attention since it was handed down May 29, 2013.  The case held that a disclosure made pursuant to 1692g(a) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it instructed the recipient of the letter that if she wished to dispute the debt, she could only do so in writing. The decision recognized that under section 1692g, some disputes can be verbal. It also recognized that under other sections (particularly sections 1692g(a)(4) and 1692g(b), a dispute must be in writing to be effective. Most debt collectors have 1692g disclosures that closely […]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana) has recently ruled that collection or “dunning” letters sent after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) unless they also disclose that the debt may be time-barred. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and § 1692f of the FDCPA prohibit debt collectors from making “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt” (which includes a false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt), and from using any “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” […]

There is a split of authority among the circuits as to whether or not a debtor must articulate a dispute in writing under the validation of debts section of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically 15 USC 1692g(a)(3). This is certainly a topic for servicers to monitor because of the strict liability penalties imposed by the FDCPA. 15 USC 1692g states: (a)  Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written […]

A collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it stated that the debtor could only dispute the debt in writing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled. In Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. Applying the “straightforward language of the statute,” the court held that the FDCPA does not require a written dispute to avoid an assumption by the debt collector that the debt is valid. The Second Circuit distinguished language in different portions of FDCPA Section 1692g, with certain portions requiring […]

This case determined that a debt collector’s inaccurate representation to a debtor that her student loans were “ineligible” for bankruptcy discharge was a false, misleading, or deceptive debt collection practice, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. BACKGROUND In 1987, Plaintiff Berlincia Easterling obtained a student loan guaranteed by the United States Department of Education. On August 23, 2001, with the assistance of counsel, Easterling filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. At that time, her student loan balance amounted to $2,469. In her bankruptcy petition, Easterling classified her student loan debt as “not dischargeable” […]