A recent District Court decision serves as a reminder to both Plaintiffs and Defendants to properly scrutinize a complaint for well-pleaded factual allegations. In Walker v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C., et. al, No....more
A recent case from a Wisconsin district court serves as a reminder that the best approach to a 1692g notice is that it stands alone. In Maniaci v. The Receivable Management Services Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109087 (E.D....more
Settle (verb): “to conclude (a lawsuit) by agreement between parties usually out of court. Merriam Webster Dictionary -
The Third Circuit has refined its position as to whether collection of time-barred debt may violate...more
The Seventh Circuit has held that a voice mail message left for a consumer is a “communication” under the FDCPA. In Hart v. Credit Control, LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18375 (11th Cir. Sept, 22, 2017), the debt collector left...more
Mortgage servicers need to carefully review their Transfer Notices when the debt is in default at the time of transfer. In an unpublished decision, the Eastern District of New York recently held that a “Notice of Servicing...more
7/12/2017
/ Banking Sector ,
Debt Collection ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
FDCPA ,
Financial Services Industry ,
Interest Rates ,
Mortgage Servicers ,
Mortgages ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Principal Balance ,
Transfer of Interest
A summons which stated the consumer had thirty days to answer a debt collection suit did not violate the FDCPA when the state rules of civil procedure only provided for twenty days. In Bryant v. Kass Shuler, P.A., the...more
A district court from New York recently ruled that even assuming a creditor’s initial TILA disclosures falls short under the statutory requirements, the plaintiff must show an injury in fact in order to have standing under...more
3/13/2017
/ Article III ,
Consumer Lenders ,
Credit Cards ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Fees ,
Financial Institutions ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Retailers ,
Standing ,
Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
A recent district court opinion from Michigan makes clear that statutory violations of the FDCPA do not absolve a plaintiff from the need to show a concrete injury in order to establish Article III standing. In Johnston v....more
A district court out of Missouri has served up a reminder as to the limitations of a motion to dismiss based upon subject matter jurisdiction. In May v. Consumer Adjustment Co., the consumer filed an FDCPA complaint is state...more
2/13/2017
/ Article III ,
Debt Collection ,
Demand Letter ,
FDCPA ,
Financial Institutions ,
Financial Services Industry ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Spokeo v Robins ,
Standing ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A district court from New York recently ruled that even assuming a creditor’s initial TILA disclosures fell short under the statutory requirements, the plaintiff must show an injury in fact in order to have standing under...more
2/3/2017
/ Article III ,
Banking Sector ,
Comenity Bank ,
Credit Cards ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Fees ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Lenders ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Nordstrom Inc. ,
Retail Market ,
Retailers ,
Standing ,
Truth in Lending Act (TILA)