Don Maurice is a partner at MauriceWutscher, LLP a nationwide law firm representing the financial services industry. Since 1988, Don has defended the financial services industry in various state and federal courts including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Eighth Circuits and as amicus counsel before the Second, Sixth and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the US Supreme Court. He currently serves as chair of the Debt Collection Practices and Bankruptcy Subcommittee of the American Bar Association’s Consumer Financial Services Committee, Business Law Section. Don is a fellow of the American College of Consumer Financial Services Lawyers and serves on the Governing Committee of the Conference on Consumer Finance Law. Don is admitted to the Bars of New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia where he regularly practices.
Network with Donald Mauriceon Twitter
A decision will likely impact litigation under the FDCPA, TILA, EFTA and other federal laws, which can expose financial services companies to extraordinary liability even though the injured party has suffered no real loss.
Last week, New York attempted to clarify some of its new debt collection regulations. While helpful, DBA International is presenting an opportunity this week for real answers to lingering questions.
New York’s Department of Financial Services published regulations on Dec. 3, 2014, which require debt collectors to make additional disclosures to consumers, among other things. Here is a comprehensive look at what the new rules cover from a veteran ARM attorney.
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 of the ARM industry. That has proven to be quite true.
On the heels of a June 30 decision finding that a New Jersey law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because its attorneys spent four seconds reviewing a pleading, a complaint seeking class certification has been filed against the same firm, citing findings of fact from the adverse court opinion.
Last month’s 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim to be made against a bankruptcy proof of claim filed on out-of-statute debt will get a rehearing if a petition filed by LVNV Funding, LLC is granted.
Companies that hire vendors to place automated calls to cell phones may find themselves at greater risk for Telephone Consumer Protection Act troubles following a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp. The recent decision follows a May 2013 ruling from the Federal Communications Commission in In re […]
Buried in the FTC’s announced settlement with an auto lender last week over debt collection practices was a seemingly new set of standards for debt collectors. The directives addressing FCRA and debt collection compliance suggest regulators are toughening certain standards and, in some cases, creating entirely new standards for certain debt collection activities.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) requires a call placed to a cellular phone using an autodialer to have the prior express consent of the person who received the call, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held this past Friday in a ruling that went against the creditor defendant.
Last week the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the consolidated appeals of McMahon v. LVNV Funding and Delgado v. Capital Management Services concerning the collection of time-barred debt without the threat of litigation. The result is not good for the credit and collections industry, principally because it further confuses application of the FDCPA across the nation.