The non-judicial foreclosure lawyer is not …

0

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 September 28 to October 1:

September 28

Bryan v. Everest Acceptable: the voice message on a mobile phone shared by the consumer is not a communication with a third party

A voicemail message left on a cell phone was not a prohibited third party communication under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because there is an expectation of confidentiality on a personal cell phone, unlike a landline answering machine. In addition, it is the consumer who voluntarily disseminates the information by sharing the message.

Continue reading the summary here.

Raymond v. Arcadia Recovery: collector obtains rejection of FDCPA claims

A court has determined that a consumer represented by a lawyer is not imputed from a creditor to his collector. Because the consumer did not allege that the collector actually knew that the consumer was represented by counsel, the court dismissed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims without prejudice. Editor’s Note: This is an archived decision.

Continue reading the summary here.

Myers v. AES: Court dismisses data provider’s request for reconsideration of deliberate and unreasonable consumer dispute investigation

The consumer has challenged the data provider’s business line three times. Despite this, the information has not been fully corrected. The court previously ruled that the data provider unreasonably investigated the consumer disputes and intentionally provided incorrect information. The data provider filed a request for reconsideration.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 29

Marshall v. Grubhub: the claimant has standing for TCPA claims

The court followed the majority view and the recent ruling of the 6th Lindenbaum Circuit, concluding that the severability of the change from extending government debt to the Consumer Protection Act by telephone works both retrospectively and prospectively, so that the validity of the blanket robotic calling ban survived the unconstitutional amendment and thus the plaintiff in this case had standing for its claims.

Continue reading the summary here.

Chisom c. Afni: the letter informing the consumer of the potential consequences of a defect did not obscure the validation period

The consumer received a collection letter for a debt she did not believe she owed. The consumer claimed that she would have challenged it, but the letter troubled her so she did not. The consumer went on to say that the letter overshadowed the validation period. The debt collector requested dismissal and the court granted the debt collector’s request.

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 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by including a disclosure regarding the possibility of a 1099-C report.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 30

Rodriguez-Ocasio v. Midland: Arbitration clause has not passed to debt buyer and affiliates

Consumers have filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the debt collector’s initial communication did not include all of the required language. The debt collector attempted to demand arbitration based on the consumers’ agreement with the original creditor. Editor’s Note: This is an archived decision.

Continue reading the summary here.

Reno v. National credit: the term “original creditor” in the recovery letter is not misleading

The consumer received a letter that only used the term “original creditor” to describe the creditor. It also contained an offer to settle and a statement that the debt collector was not obligated to renew it. The consumer claimed the letter was misleading. The court closed the case.

Continue reading the summary here.

Bruce v. Ally Financial: Reporting a closed account with a zero balance and a monthly payment amount did not violate the FCRA

An Alabama district court found that a lender did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act by stating that an old account was “closed” with a zero balance but still showing a monthly payment of $ 884.

Continue reading the summary here.

October 1st

Hernandez v. Oliphant Fin: the letter designating the current creditor is neither false nor misleading

The consumer received a collection letter and did not recognize the current creditor or debt collector as entities she had previously done business with, and therefore stated that she did not owe them any money. The consumer claimed that this made the letter she received false and liable to prosecution under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Editor’s Note: This is an archived decision.

Continue reading the summary here.

Dare v. Nam: the non-judicial foreclosure lawyer is not a debt collector

The California District Court applied the rule established under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that attorneys engaged in non-judicial foreclosure proceedings do not fall within the definition of a debt collector within the meaning of the law.

Continue reading the summary here.

Gilliam v. Porter Mcguire Kaikona & Chow: magistrate recommends denial of law firm’s attorney’s fee request

The trial judge recommended that the law firm’s claim for attorney’s fees under section 1692k (3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act be dismissed because, although the court agreed that the case had been brought in bad faith, the law firm failed to demonstrate that the action had been brought for the purpose of harassment.

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.


Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.