Yesterday, I was honored to be among the small business representatives who testified in front of the Small Business Review Panel for the CFPB Debt Collector and Debt Buyer Rulemaking. We testified from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM; the feedback centered around three main themes.
The debt collection proposals outlined by the CFPB for the SBREFA panel are driven in large part by the CFPB’s reliance on the data derived from its complaint portal and a consumer survey conducted by the Bureau over several months in 2014-15. The survey results are remarkable in how closely they mirror the complaint portal data.
When collectors get sued in an FDCPA action, they face a steep uphill battle. Courts apply the very pro-consumer “least sophisticated debtor” standard when evaluating a collector’s communications, and most violations of the Act are “strict liability.” However, courts have gradually been demanding more and have rejected suits based on hyper-technicalities.
In a new decision filed on Wednesday, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case involving the defendant sending a letter with a visible barcode on it. The case, Anenkova v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, is a positive […]
This article was originally published on the Maurice Wutscher blog and is republished here with permission. On July 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC. That opinion began by decrying the “deluge” of proofs of claim filed by debt buyers on debts that are unenforceable […]
This article was originally published on the Maurice Wutscher blog and is republished here with permission. Filing a proof of claim with a bankruptcy court representing a debt subject to an expired state law limitations period does not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) under an opinion released yesterday from the Seventh Circuit Court […]
On August 4, 2016 the CFPB released a rule providing safe harbors from liability under the FDCPA for certain actions taken in compliance with mortgage servicing rules, but after the consumer has made a cease communication request. This will interest the ARM industry more broadly as it may signal a willingness to provide safe harbor where notification requirements are in conflict with the consumer’s interests.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision from a district court in a bench trial that a collection law firm had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failure to specifically state in a voice message: “This communication is from a debt collector.” The case is Davis v. […]
July’s FDCPA-related cases include some positive outcomes and some negative outcomes for the industry. Review the list, and our at-a-glance case law resource, powered each month by Joann Needleman of Clark Hill.
On July 27, 2016 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in the case of Bock v. Pressler & Pressler. “Meaningful Involvement” meet “Injury in Fact.” This case may have a life of its own.