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.
At a collection conference in Las Vegas, regulators shared some insight into how they view out-of-statute debt. They called for fuller disclosures to consumers, both on legal action (agencies can’t take any) and responsibility to pay (the consumer, in an out-of-stat-debt situation, has none). Will the insight make it into the Policies and Procedures of collection agencies, though?
In a very long feature article running in The New York Times Magazine, author Jake Halpern explores the world of debt brokers and buyers through the eyes of two veteran collection professionals.
Now that the industry has had the chance to take a deeper dive into the details of the New York Department of Financial Services’ proposed regulations for debt collection by third-party debt collectors and debt buyers, experts and organizations are submitting their feedback on how to further improve the regulations. Specific questions remain about the correct language to use in consumer notices, and how the rules may impact creditors.
Addressing what it termed “a deluge [that] has swept through U.S. bankruptcy courts of late,” the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC last week held that filing a proof of claim on time barred debt is conduct that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
A judge recently held that inaction cannot form the basis of a continuing violations theory under the FDCPA or Florida collection law. The holding constitutes an important development in the debt collection realm and sets a good precedent for analysis of the application of statutes of limitations to inaction or omissions on the part of debt collectors.
A former employee of the state of Florida revealed Monday that the Sunshine State’s economic development office referred thousands of cases to debt collectors that were not eligible for such actions. She went public with the allegations after winning a $250,000 settlement with the state in April over wrongful termination in a whistleblower case.
ACA International recently filed an amicus curiae brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Buchanan v Northland Group Inc. At issue is the district court’s decision that a debt collector does not mislead a consumer and therefore does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by making a settlement offer to collect a debt without disclosing that the statute of limitations for filing a collection lawsuit has expired.
As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau tries its hand at rulemaking and surveying in the debt collection industry, Ronald Canter - founder of The Law Offices of Ronald S. Canter, LLC and panelist at ARM-U – wrote about five key court cases the industry should look towards as precedent for the Bureau’s proposed reforms. But at […]
Does a consumer need to be “protected” from repaying his own debts? Can a consumer be “harmed” if he voluntarily makes a payment on a debt that he admittedly owes? The CFPB apparently believes that sometimes the answer is “yes.”