A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
10/1/2021 8:30
Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Here are the cases covered September 28 – October 1:
September 28
Bryan v. Everest Receivable: Cell Phone Voice Message Shared by Consumer Isn’t Third Party Communication
A voicemail left on a cell phone was not an impermissible third-party communication under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because there is an expectation of privacy on a personal cellphone, unlike a landline answering machine. Moreover, it was the consumer who voluntarily disseminated the information by sharing the message.
Continue reading the summary here.
Raymond v. Arcadia Recovery: Collector Wins Dismissal of FDCPA Claims
A court determined that a consumer represented by an attorney is not imputed from a creditor to its collector. Because the consumer did not allege the collector had actual knowledge that the consumer was represented by an attorney, the court dismissed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims without prejudice. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
Myers v. AES: Court Denies Data Furnisher’s Motion for Reconsideration of Willful and Unreasonable Investigation of Consumer Dispute
The consumer disputed the data furnisher’s tradeline three times. Despite this, the information was not fully corrected. The court previously ruled that the data furnisher had unreasonably investigated the consumer’s disputes and had willfully furnished incorrect information. The data furnisher filed a motion for reconsideration.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 29
Marshall v. Grubhub: Plaintiff Has Standing for TCPA Claims
The court followed the majority view and the recent 6th Circuit Lindenbaum decision finding that the severability of the government debt extension amendment to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act operates both retrospectively and prospectively, such that the validity of the general robocall prohibition survived the unconstitutional amendment and so the plaintiff of this case had standing for her claims.
Continue reading the summary here.
Chisom v. Afni: Letter Informing Consumer of Potential Consequences of Default Did Not Overshadow Validation Period
The consumer received a collection letter for a debt that she did not believe she owed. The consumer claimed she would have disputed it, but the letter confused her and so she did not. The consumer sued claiming the letter overshadowed the validation period. The debt collector moved to dismiss, and the court granted the debt collector’s motion.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bordeaux v. LTD Financial Services: 1099-C Reporting Disclosure Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A New Jersey district court found that a letter offering to settle a debt did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by including a disclosure regarding the possibility 1099-C reporting.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 30
Rodriguez-Ocasio v. Midland: Arbitration Clause Did Not Transfer to Debt Buyer and Affiliates
The consumers filed a class action claiming the debt collector’s initial communication did not include all required language. The debt collector attempted to compel arbitration based on the consumers’ agreement with the original creditor. Editor’s Note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
Reno v. Nationwide Credit: Term “Original Creditor” in Collection Letter Not Misleading
The consumer received a letter that only used the phrase “original creditor” to describe the creditor. It also contained a settlement offer and a statement that the debt collector was not obligated to renew it. The consumer claimed the letter was misleading. The court dismissed the case.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bruce v. Ally Financial: Reporting Closed Account with Zero Balance and Monthly Payment Amount Did Not Violate FCRA
An Alabama district court found a lender did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting a former account as “closed” with zero balance but continuing to show a monthly payment of $884.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 1
Hernandez v. Oliphant Fin: Letter Naming Current Creditor Not False or Misleading
The consumer received a collection letter and did not recognize the current creditor or debt collector as entities with which she had previously conducted business, and therefore said that she did not owe them any money. The consumer claimed this made the letter she received false and actionable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dare v. Nam: Attorney in Nonjudicial Foreclosure Is Not Debt Collector
The California district court applied the established rule under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that attorneys engaging in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings do not fall within the definition of a debt collector under the meaning of the act.
Continue reading the summary here.
Gilliam v. Porter Mcguire Kaikona & Chow: Magistrate Recommends Denial of Law Firm’s Attorney Fee Request
The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the law firm’s attorney fee request under Section 1692k(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because, while the court agreed that the case was brought in bad faith, the law firm failed to show that the action was brought for the purpose of harassment.
Continue reading the summary here.
If you’ve recently obtained a judicial opinion that might benefit other ACA members, email it to us: [email protected].
- Join the discussion on legal and compliance topics with your fellow members on the Members Attorney Program community on The Hub. Simply log on to The Hub and select Members Attorney Program under the Communities menu.
- ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.
To receive notifications about ACA content—including member alerts, upcoming events and new products—text ALERTS to 96997.
Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency will vary. To opt-out at any time, reply STOP to any message we send.