The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Tuesday announced a settlement with a national mortgage servicing company over charges that it engaged in illegal debt collection and loan servicing practices.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month reversed a lower court’s ruling in a case brought against Bank of America in which the plaintiff alleged FDCPA violations on the part of a law firm collecting on BofA’s behalf. The defendants argued that the FDCPA does not apply to attorneys engaged in the practice of law, which the Circuit panel rejected.
DBA International is hosting a webinar on Wednesday, April 22nd on understanding the new risks in the bankruptcy claim process. Companies that participate in the bankruptcy claims process have faced a flood of litigation since the 2014 Crawford opinion by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
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.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) late last week released its fourth annual report to Congress detailing the regulator’s efforts to administer and enforce the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The report includes updates on supervision, enforcement, rulemaking, and complaints in the debt collection market, among other things.
A three-judge panel in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling granting summary judgment to a collection agency that used a bona fide error defense in case brought against it under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Circuit Court also upheld an award of certain costs to the defendant.
There has been a lot of litigation relating to envelopes recently, but section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA, which regulates collection envelopes, is not new. It has been a source of frustration for collectors for decades. Fortunately, some courts have recognized that a strict application of section 1692f(8) may lead to absurd results, and have held that “benign language” on an envelope does not violate the FDCPA. Unfortunately, the word “benign” can be VERY slippery.
A federal judge in Indiana last week dismissed part of an enforcement action brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) against a for-profit college under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) because TILA actions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. A collection law firm currently embroiled in a nasty legal fight with the CFPB jumped on the opportunity to note that the FDCPA carries similar restrictions.
A recent trend has evolved in FDCPA litigation where courts have allowed bankrupt debtors to file FDCPA claims based on the alleged invalidity of a proof of claim filed by a third party collector and/or debt buyer. But a precedential Circuit Court ruling Tuesday appears to limit the timing of some of those suits.
The Federal Trade Commission, jointly with the New York State Office of the Attorney General, has filed lawsuits aimed at shutting down two particularly egregious and abusive debt collection operations centered in Buffalo, N.Y. that target consumers nationwide