insideARM FDCPA Caselaw Roundup Through January 30, 2016

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

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. 

January FDCPA Cases in the Spotlight

January’s FDCPA-related cases include some positive outcomes and some negative outcomes for the industry. Don’t miss any FDCPA-relevant cases. You can find updated coverage of the most recent, relevant cases at the insideARM FDCPA page, including details on:

Judd v. Credit Control, Mo. District Court

The gist: Missouri court held that subsequent debt collector that was acquired by previous debt collection does not have to send 1692g disclosure.

Todd. V. United States Bank, Pa. District Court

The gist: The court found that the Rocker-Feldman doctrine applies and challenges to costs, fees and interest on a default judgment and writ of execution should have been challenged in state court. Editor’s Note: The Rocker-Feldman doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts—i.e., federal courts other than the Supreme Court—should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief.

Halberstam V. Global Credit & Collection Corp., N.Y. District Court

The gist: Telephone call to debtor answered by a third party, where name and number was left (but no ID that debt collector), was deemed a communication under the FDCPA because it induced consumer to contact debt collector. Summary judgment was granted in the consumer’s favor.

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Collection Laws & Regulations, FDCPA .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

Leave a Reply