John K. Rossman is a shareholder and Chair of the Creditors' Remedies Practice Group at Moss & Barnett, P.A. Mr. Rossman is a nationally acclaimed authority on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the labyrinth of laws that impact the debt industry. He is a counselor and advisor to national and international companies and noted for his intelligent, creative and successful representation of collection agencies, debt buyers, creditors and fellow attorneys in cases across the country.
Network with John Rossmanon LinkedIn
In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin break down the law changes in New York, Illinois, and Maine, and provide practical guidance for compliance and avoiding pitfalls.
Given the data that must be weighed by a creditor or debt collector in determining where a consumer resides – the area code of the number called, the zip code of the residence of record, any statements by the consumer about his or her place of residence – it is certain that the Discover Consent Order will be the start of yet another flood of consumer lawsuits against the collection industry regarding the calling of consumer cell phones.
The recent order issued by the FCC regarding the TCPA encompasses 138 pages (including hundreds of footnotes) and created an instant tidal wave of questions, comments and uncertainty about the use of telephone technology to contact consumers on mobile phones. After digesting the order, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin share what you need to know.
Charging convenience fees: should you or shouldn’t you? The practice might be the next battleground for the debt collection industry. As with many regulations, there are more questions than answers — and the answers that are available aren’t to everyone’s liking. Join attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin, of Moss & Barnett, to get another point of view on fees and debt collection.
The West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, and how it was interpreted by the consumer attorneys in West Virginia, was the primary reason that State had previously been described as one of the most “treacherous” places in the country for debt collectors. Lawsuits were routinely commenced in West Virginia State Courts seeking hundreds of thousands […]
Collection agencies, debt buyers and credit granters are often under siege, forced to defend against identical claims on multiple jurisdictional fronts, regardless of whether the claims are on behalf of an individual or a putative class. One strategy for consolidating the defense of identical claims is to file a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) to transfer claims to a single venue.
A long-established exception to the FDCPA’s “least sophisticated consumer” standard has been communications with consumers’ attorneys. Because how could it be argued that an attorney is not “sophisticated?” But a recent Circuit Court ruling opened new ground on that front when it found that some communications with attorneys should be held to the standard.
Collection agencies and debt buyers continue to be inundated with FDCPA and TCPA lawsuits, many of which drag on through months and even years of expensive discovery and motion practice. What if there existed a single argument that could be made in many consumer cases that would successfully remove the matter from Court and likely end the case in its entirety?
The New York State Department of Financial Services announced recently revised debt collection regulations, culminating more than a year of proposals and comments. While the new regulations provide clarity and consumer protection in some areas, they are fraught with ambiguities and overlap existing laws in several key aspects
In the weeks since the Circuit Court decision in Douglass v. Convergent — the infamous envelope window disclosure case — filings of similar cases against debt collectors have been brisk. Two ARM defense attorneys discuss some specific legal theories upon which debt collectors may defend similar claims.