The CFPB Tuesday released its Supervisory Highlights report for Fall 2014. Among the highlights were recent examinations of larger market participant debt collectors resulting in identification of “an unfair practice and several violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” involving convenience fees, threats of litigation, bad training materials, and debt sales practices.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Friday ruled against a debt buyer who it said violated the FDCPA when it sought interest charges for a credit card debt. The decision reversed a lower court ruling and included a sharp dissent from the third judge in the appellate panel.
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.
The number of lawsuits filed by consumers against ARM companies claiming violations of the FDCPA, FCRA, and TCPA increased in September from August, WebRecon LLC said Friday. But FDCPA lawsuits are still on track to show significant declines for the year.
A federal district judge in Kansas recently ruled that a voicemail left by a debt collection agency failing to identify itself as a collector did not violate the FDCPA because the plain text of the law states that multiple calls must be made and that “harassment” cannot occur in one call.
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Tuesday that he is proposing new legislation in the state that would protect state residents from debt collection scams by “expanding the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) at the state level.”
A federal judge last week certified a class action that accuses a mortgage services company of violating the FDCPA by leaving a message on a door hanger for a consumer to call a specific number. The note made no mention of the debt, although it was left specifically for that purpose.
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.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Monday denied a petition to rehear an FDCPA case that involved an account number being visible through the clear window of an envelope containing a debt collection letter.
In a split decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court ruling that a collection letter send by a law firm violated the FDCPA because it gave the impression that the consumer could not dispute the debt and that payment was the only option to avoid litigation.