Daily Decisions Recap: Hunstein Binding in Circuit 11


Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers case summaries relevant to ACA members. Members can also submit cases for review to our compliance team at [email protected].

Here are the cases covered from October 26 to 29:

October 26

Hines v. Regions Bank: 11th Circuit dismisses consumer appeal – defendant not a debt collector

The consumer appealed against the district court’s rejection of his claim without permission to amend. The court of appeal confirmed the opinion of the district court. Editor’s Note: This is an archived decision.

Continue reading the summary here.

Wright v. Keller Williams: TCPA claims fail when defendants’ phone equipment targeted specific people

The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring TCPA actions under the Lindenbaum appeal decision, but the court rejected some of the plaintiffs’ TCPA claims because, according to Duguid, the definition of an ATDS or an automatic dialer excluded equipment that targets a list of individuals.

Continue reading the summary here.

Stone v. Trans Union LLC: closed account with $ 0 balance and non-misleading overdue payment status

A Pennsylvania district court ruled that the statement of an account closed with a balance of $ 0 but with overdue payment status was not inaccurate or misleading under the FCRA when the report was read in its together.

Continue reading the summary here.

October 27

Olson v. Armada: Court grants SJ ruling on FDCPA claims

Dismissing consumers’ numerous attempts to raise questions of material fact, the court ruled that the collector had presented sufficient evidence to show that he had not violated any provision of the FDCPA.

Continue reading the summary here.

Bell v. Experian: Challenging a disputed business line with the CRA does not require its removal after investigation

The consumer disputed the mention on her credit report “disputed account” with the CRA. The data provider investigated the dispute but did not remove the reference. The consumer went on to say that the data provider failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. The court disagreed.

Continue reading the summary here.

Bordeaux c. LTD Financial Services: Disclosure of 1099-C Reports Did Not Violate FDCPA

A New Jersey district court found that a letter offering to settle a debt did not violate the FDCPA by including a disclosure regarding the possibility of a 1099-C report. Editor’s Note: This is an archived decision.

Continue reading the summary here.

October 28

Everhart v. Credit Vision: the consumer must prove the emotional damage

A consumer sued a debt collector for failing to mark her debt as disputed after she allegedly sent a dispute letter. The debt collector never responded to the consumer’s complaint and she requested a default judgment. The consumer sought actual damages based on emotional distress as well as statutory damages.

Continue reading the summary here.

Lewis v. Titlemax: Third parties can file complaints with the FDCPA

The FDCPA grants third parties the right to avail themselves of section 1692f of the law, which fulfills the objective of the FDCPA to eliminate unfair or unreasonable collection practices that could harm third parties.

Continue reading the summary here.

Peraga vs. McMichael Taylor Gray: Hunstein Binding in the 11th circuit

Find the outfit of the 11th Circuit Hunstein as a binding precedent, the court ruled that the consumer had standing under Article IIII by alleging that a law firm had shared its information with a third-party mail seller.

Continue reading the summary here.

29 october

Fultz v. Zirpola: collectors ordered to pay $ 29,000 in damages

After collectors failed to respond to a consumer complaint alleging FDCPA and TCPA violations, the court issued a default judgment and ordered the collectors to pay damages, including a compensation of $ 15,000 under the FDCPA for emotional distress and treble damages for a knowing and willful violation of the TCPA.

Continue reading the summary here.

Huges v. Certified credit and collection office: creditor duly identified by collection letter

The consumer received a collection letter which used language substantially similar to that of the FDCPA. The consumer claimed that the letter did not unambiguously identify the creditor and did not specify how the debtor should dispute the debt in writing.

Continue reading the summary here.

O’Neal v. Equifax: Closed account with $ 0 balance and non-deceptive late payment history

The court concluded that declaring an account closed with a balance of $ 0, but with a history of late payments that was neither inaccurate nor misleading, did not violate the FCRA.

Continue reading the summary here.

If you have recently obtained legal advice that may benefit other ACA members, email it to us: [email protected].

  • Join the discussion on legal and compliance topics with your fellow member lawyer program community members on The Hub. Just log in to The center and select Member Advocate Program from the Communities menu.
  • The ACA’s day-to-day decision is fed by ACA’s litigation defense and compliance teams.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.