insideARM FDCPA Caselaw Roundup Through February 29, 2016

insideARM maintains a FDCPA resource page to provide the ARM community a destination for timely and topical information on The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). This page is generously supported by TransUnion. 

See it here or find it in our main navigation bar from any page on insideARM.com. You may click on the link in the chart for the complete text of the decision. Where insideARM has already published a story on the case you can click a link to the earlier story.

The centerpiece of the page is a chart of significant FDCPA cases. Case information and analysis is provided by Joann Needleman, Clark Hill attorney and leader of the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Regulatory & Compliance Group. 

February FDCPA Cases in the Spotlight

February’s FDCPA-related cases include some positive outcomes and some negative outcomes for the industry. Don’t miss any FDCPA-relevant cases.

Ms. Needleman highlighted more than 20 cases in February.  While some may have limited applicability (such as those cases that dealt with law firm collections or legal pleadings) the following are among the most interesting cases for the entire ARM industry.

Bedrosian v. State Collection Serv.

The gist: The court held that a debt collector’s response to a consumer’s question about a garnishment did not state a claim under the FDCPA.

Diaz v. First Marblehead Corp

The gist: The Second Circuit affirmed an award of attorney’s fees under 1602k(a)(3) against a consumer whose attorney filed numerous FDCPA cases against servicers knowing they were not “debt collectors” as defined by the FDCPA.

Hamburger v. Northland Group., Inc.

The gist: Contrast the above case with the aforementioned First Marblehead Corp case. Here the court found evidence that Plaintiff falsified evidence and had no good faith basis to bring suit. Yet, claims for attorney’s fees and costs under 1692k(a)(3) were denied.

Scarola Malone & Zubatov LLP v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff

The gist: The Second Circuit affirmed plain language of the FDCPA that the true nature of the debt determines whether it is covered under the act, rather than actions of the debt collector.

insideARM Perspective

insideARM is pleased to provide this resource to our readers.  New FDCPA opinions are released by the courts on a daily basis. It is impossible to report on or include all of the cases in the chart; Ms. Needleman does a terrific job of sifting through the totality of new opinions and provides an easy-to-read and understand summary of the key issues.