Daily Decision Recap: Debt Collector Did Not Violate FDCPA When Discussing Consumer’s Debt with Her Brother

A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.

9/17/2021 8:00 AM

Daily Decision RecapNewsIndustry Advancement Fund
Daily Decision Recap: Debt Collector Did Not Violate FDCPA When Discussing Consumer’s Debt with Her Brother

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 dailydecision@acainternational.org.

Here are the cases covered September 14 - September 17:

September 14

Davis v. Portfolio: ‘We Will Not Sue You’ Disclosure Not Misleading

A Florida district court held that a letter stating “we will not sue you” regarding a time barred debt did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Continue reading the summary here.

Lindenbaum v. Realgy: 6th Circuit Reverses, TCPA Plaintiff Has Standing to Sue

Because unconstitutional enactments are not law, a court conducting severability analysis interprets what a statute meant from the start if considered without the-impermissible provision, and so the constitutional provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act remain intact and this plaintiff had standing to sue under those provisions.

Continue reading the summary here.

Brown v. CACH, LLC: Debt Collector Did Not Violate FDCPA When Discussing Consumer’s Debt with Her Brother

The consumer’s brother contacted the debt collector, without the consumer’s consent. The consumer’s brother represented himself as his sister to the debt collector. The debt collector provided information about the consumer’s debt to her brother. The consumer’s brother sued the debt collector for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 15

Kola v. Forster & Garbus: Consumer’s Response to Collection Letters Proves They Were Not Misleading

The consumer in this case received a series of collection letters, including two that had a balance due that differed from the others. The consumer claimed the letters were confusing and misleading but admitted that she would not have been able to pay the debt even if she were sure of the amount due. The debt collector moved for summary judgment.

Continue reading the summary here.

Stanley v. Forte: Court Finds Surgical Assistant and Medical Provider Were Not Debt Collectors Under the FDCPA

A Georgia district court granted a surgical assistant and medical provider’s motion for summary judgment, finding the defendants were not debt collectors as defined Section 1692a(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Continue reading the summary here.

Mraz V. I.C. Systems, Inc.: Court Reduces Award of Attorney’s Fees to $72,651 and Denied the Motion for Sanctions

Using the lodestar method in a case involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims, the court rejected the hourly rate a consumer proposed should be paid to various attorneys, and so reduced the requested fee award of $116,845, instead ordering a collector to pay a consumer $72,651 in attorneys fees and $1,366 in costs.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 16

Krueger v. Experian: Sixth Circuit Finds Consumer Had Standing to Proceed with Claim

The consumer in this case claimed a loan servicer acted willfully and negligently by reporting his mortgage loan as past due, even though it knew the loan was discharged in bankruptcy. The district court found in favor of the loan servicer stating the consumer lacked standing to bring his claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed and remanded the case.

Continue reading the summary here.

Robbins v. Med-1: ‘Fees on Fees’ Not an FDCPA Violation

The 7th Circuit found that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to collect attorney’s fees on top of attorney’s fees in a state-court collection lawsuit.

Continue reading the summary here.

Liu v. Radius Global Solutions: Court Follows Hunstein Decision

An Illinois district court followed the 11th Circuit Hunstein decision and found a consumer had standing to sue in federal court even while recognizing the 7thCircuit has not yet addressed the issue of whether a consumer’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit claiming a collector’s use of a letter vendor improperly revealed a consumer’s confidential information to a third-party could support such standing.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 17

Brickman v. Facebook: System That Dialed Numbers from an Existing List Not an ATDS

A California district court found that to qualify as an ATDS under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the system must randomly or sequentially generate the numbers that it dials, rather than pull them from an existing list.

Continue reading the summary here.

Shafer v. The Moore Law Group: Court Denies Collector’s Motion to Dismiss

Once a collector knows that a consumer is represented by an attorney, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act protects the consumer from further contact by the collector regardless of whether the consumer’s attorney has filed a formal notice of appearance.

Continue reading the summary here.

Barnett v. American Express: Ignoring Consumer’s Request for Arbitration Am Ex Waived its Arbitration Rights

The consumer attempted to exercise her arbitration rights over alleged fraudulent charges on her credit card. American Express ignored her requests for arbitration and sued her in state court. The consumer then filed her own lawsuit against American Express. American Express then moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the credit card agreement.

Continue reading the summary here.

  • If you’ve recently obtained a judicial opinion that might benefit other ACA members, email it to us: dailydecision@acainternational.org.
  • 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.

Follow ACA International on Twitter @ACAIntl and @acacollector, Facebook and request to join our LinkedIn group for news and event updates. ACA International members are welcome to submit news items for possible publication to comm@acainternational.org. Visit our publications page for news submission guidelines and subscriptions to ACA Daily, Collector magazine and Pulse.

Advertising is available for companies wishing to promote their products or services. Be sure to visit the ACA Events Calendar on the Education and Training page to view our listing of upcoming CORE Curriculum and Hot Topic seminars featuring critical educational opportunities for your company.


Subscribe to ACA Daily NEWSROOM

Daily Decision Recap: Debt Collector Did Not Violate FDCPA When Discussing Consumer’s Debt with Her Brother

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 dailydecision@acainternational.org.

Here are the cases covered September 14 - September 17:

September 14

Davis v. Portfolio: ‘We Will Not Sue You’ Disclosure Not Misleading

A Florida district court held that a letter stating “we will not sue you” regarding a time barred debt did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Continue reading the summary here.

Lindenbaum v. Realgy: 6th Circuit Reverses, TCPA Plaintiff Has Standing to Sue

Because unconstitutional enactments are not law, a court conducting severability analysis interprets what a statute meant from the start if considered without the-impermissible provision, and so the constitutional provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act remain intact and this plaintiff had standing to sue under those provisions.

Continue reading the summary here.

Brown v. CACH, LLC: Debt Collector Did Not Violate FDCPA When Discussing Consumer’s Debt with Her Brother

The consumer’s brother contacted the debt collector, without the consumer’s consent. The consumer’s brother represented himself as his sister to the debt collector. The debt collector provided information about the consumer’s debt to her brother. The consumer’s brother sued the debt collector for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 15

Kola v. Forster & Garbus: Consumer’s Response to Collection Letters Proves They Were Not Misleading

The consumer in this case received a series of collection letters, including two that had a balance due that differed from the others. The consumer claimed the letters were confusing and misleading but admitted that she would not have been able to pay the debt even if she were sure of the amount due. The debt collector moved for summary judgment.

Continue reading the summary here.

Stanley v. Forte: Court Finds Surgical Assistant and Medical Provider Were Not Debt Collectors Under the FDCPA

A Georgia district court granted a surgical assistant and medical provider’s motion for summary judgment, finding the defendants were not debt collectors as defined Section 1692a(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Continue reading the summary here.

Mraz V. I.C. Systems, Inc.: Court Reduces Award of Attorney’s Fees to $72,651 and Denied the Motion for Sanctions

Using the lodestar method in a case involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims, the court rejected the hourly rate a consumer proposed should be paid to various attorneys, and so reduced the requested fee award of $116,845, instead ordering a collector to pay a consumer $72,651 in attorneys fees and $1,366 in costs.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 16

Krueger v. Experian: Sixth Circuit Finds Consumer Had Standing to Proceed with Claim

The consumer in this case claimed a loan servicer acted willfully and negligently by reporting his mortgage loan as past due, even though it knew the loan was discharged in bankruptcy. The district court found in favor of the loan servicer stating the consumer lacked standing to bring his claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed and remanded the case.

Continue reading the summary here.

Robbins v. Med-1: ‘Fees on Fees’ Not an FDCPA Violation

The 7th Circuit found that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to collect attorney’s fees on top of attorney’s fees in a state-court collection lawsuit.

Continue reading the summary here.

Liu v. Radius Global Solutions: Court Follows Hunstein Decision

An Illinois district court followed the 11th Circuit Hunstein decision and found a consumer had standing to sue in federal court even while recognizing the 7thCircuit has not yet addressed the issue of whether a consumer’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit claiming a collector’s use of a letter vendor improperly revealed a consumer’s confidential information to a third-party could support such standing.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 17

Brickman v. Facebook: System That Dialed Numbers from an Existing List Not an ATDS

A California district court found that to qualify as an ATDS under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the system must randomly or sequentially generate the numbers that it dials, rather than pull them from an existing list.

Continue reading the summary here.

Shafer v. The Moore Law Group: Court Denies Collector’s Motion to Dismiss

Once a collector knows that a consumer is represented by an attorney, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act protects the consumer from further contact by the collector regardless of whether the consumer’s attorney has filed a formal notice of appearance.

Continue reading the summary here.

Barnett v. American Express: Ignoring Consumer’s Request for Arbitration Am Ex Waived its Arbitration Rights

The consumer attempted to exercise her arbitration rights over alleged fraudulent charges on her credit card. American Express ignored her requests for arbitration and sued her in state court. The consumer then filed her own lawsuit against American Express. American Express then moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the credit card agreement.

Continue reading the summary here.

  • If you’ve recently obtained a judicial opinion that might benefit other ACA members, email it to us: dailydecision@acainternational.org.
  • 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.

Follow ACA International on Twitter @ACAIntl and @acacollector, Facebook and request to join our LinkedIn group for news and event updates. ACA International members are welcome to submit news items for possible publication to comm@acainternational.org. Visit our publications page for news submission guidelines and subscriptions to ACA Daily, Collector magazine and Pulse.

Advertising is available for companies wishing to promote their products or services. Be sure to visit the ACA Events Calendar on the Education and Training page to view our listing of upcoming CORE Curriculum and Hot Topic seminars featuring critical educational opportunities for your company.


Subscribe to ACA Daily NEWSROOM

Loading...

Loading...

Scroll to Top