A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
8/20/2021 8:00
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 August 17 – August 20:
August 17
Park v. Dynamic: Including A Non-Zero Line-Item for Accrued Interest Did Not Violate FDCPA
A New York district court found a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by including a non-zero line-item for accrued interest, or by failing to disclose that the consumer’s debt was static.
Continue reading the summary here.
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, 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.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bassett v. Credit Bureau Services: Court Reverses Jury, Rejects FDCPA Decision for Collector
A Nebraska district judge erroneously instructed the jury in an FDCPA case on the law applicable to interest, the judge reversed a jury finding in favor of a debt collector as having no basis at law, and instead awarded $39,000 in damages to a consumer.
Continue reading the summary here.
August 18
Ranker v. Monterey: Failure to Allege Debt Was in Default is Grounds for Dismissal
An Alabama district court dismissed a consumer’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim because she failed to allege that the debt was in default when it was obtained by the defendant.
Continue reading the summary here.
Santiago v. Medicredit: In Letter Vendor Case Florida Court Applies Hunstein Decision, Denies Motion to Dismiss
A Florida district court refused to distinguish the Hunstein decision on its facts, and held that Hunstein was binding 11th Circuit precedent which squarely applied to the complaint before it, requiring the court to deny a collector’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
Rosenberg v. Frontline: Debt Purchasers Not Required to Provide Chain of Title in Collection Letters
The consumers in this case claimed they did not owe money to the debt purchasers who purchased their debt because neither the original creditor nor the debt purchaser told them the debt was being sold.
Continue reading the summary here.
August 19
Lupia v. Medicredit: 10th Circuit Finds Intangible Harm Enough for Standing
The 10th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding the consumer’s claim that the debt collector intruded on her seclusion constituted a concrete injury.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ward v. Nat'l Patient Acct. 6th Circuit Finds Confusion Not a Concrete Injury
The consumer received voicemail messages that did not provide the caller’s company designation. The consumer claimed this confused him and cause him to send a cease communication request to the wrong company. The 6th Circuit found the consumer did not have standing to bring his claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hood v. Nationstar Mortg.: Court Tosses Second FDCPA Action by Persistent Plaintiffs
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims raised by plaintiffs because the federal claims were essentially the same as the issues litigated in a previous, failed state court action, and the court warned the plaintiffs not to file further actions on these issues.
Continue reading the summary here.
August 20
Bertollini v. Harrison: Court Finds Private Right of Action Under Section 1681s-2(b)
The court denied the furnisher’s motion to dismiss because the argument for dismissal centered on the veracity of the consumer’s complaint instead of whether the consumer had plead a legally cognizable claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
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, 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.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lako v. Portfolio Recovery: Court Grants Partial SJ for FDCPA Defendant and Certifies Preemption Issue for Appeal
A Wisconsin District Court found a consumer’s FDCPA claims based on violation of underlying state law requirements related to default and cure were preempted by federal law, and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal.
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.