Daily Decision Recap: Pennsylvania Consumer Credit Law, Rental Disputes, and More

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

09/23/2022 1:30 P.M.

4.5 minute read

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 Sept. Sept. 20-23:

September 20:

Shoulars v. Halsted Financial: Dunning Letter Containing Two Settlement Offers Did Not Overshadow, Deceive, or Confuse

The court found a settlement offer in a dunning letter did not overshadow the required validation notice because the validation was printed on the front page and in the same font and size as the remainder of the letter; the notice contained all required language; and the letter did not suggest that the consumer had to pay her debt prior to the 30-day dispute period and thereby relinquish her validation rights.

Continue reading the case summary here.

Gwiazda v. LVNV Funding: Lack of Proof of Assignment Does Not Equal FDCPA Violation

A consumer defaulted on her credit card debt, which was ultimately sold to a debt buyer. The debt buyer sued the consumer in state court using a third-party attorney. The court found that the debt buyer had not provided evidence of its ownership of the debt. The consumer sued the debt collector for violating the FDCPA in federal court.

Continue reading the summary here.

Sandusky v. LTD Financial Services: Court Finds Bare Procedural Violation of the FDCPA Does Not Confer Standing

A Michigan district court held that a plaintiff’s claims of “emotional distress” and “increased risk of personal injury” resulting from allegedly misleading information were not concrete injuries for standing purposes without some evidence of detrimental reliance or some resulting financial harm.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 21:

Feist v. Arcadia Recovery: Court Applies Hunstein Decision, Holds Consumer Lacks Standing to Bring FDCPA Letter Vendor Claims

A consumer cannot rely on a bare procedural violation of the FDCPA alone to establish a concrete harm. Applying the final Hunstein decision, the court held the consumer alleging a debt collector violated the FDCPA by using a third-party letter vendor lacked Article III standing.

Continue reading the summary here.

Magdy v. IC System: 8th Circuit Finds Non-Consumer Attorney Lacked Statutory Standing Under the FDCPA

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found an attorney did not have standing to sue based on his receipt of a collection letter that incorrectly identified him as the attorney for an unaffiliated consumer.

Continue reading the summary here.

Evans v. ACE: Court Allows Consumer to File Amended Complaint, Dismisses Debt Collector’s Motion as Moot

A consumer discovered medical debts on his credit report that were covered by insurance. The consumer disputed the debts twice, but they were not removed nor were they marked as disputed. The consumer sued the debt collector and CRAs. The CRAs were dismissed from the case.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 22:

Manos v. Freedom Mortg.: Data Furnisher’s Robust Process and Records Leads 4th Circuit to Affirm Furnisher Did Not Violate the FCRA

Whether a data furnisher’s investigation into a consumer’s dispute was reasonable is based on an evaluation of information within the furnisher’s possession, such as correspondence between the consumer and the furnisher, the data identified by the reporting agency as disputed, and the furnisher’s other records relating to the disputed account.

Continue reading the summary here.

Lutz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates: 3rd Circuit Finds Pennsylvania’s Consumer Credit Law Did Not Apply to a Debt Collector

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals found that Pennsylvania’s Consumer Discount Company Act did not apply to the activities of a debt collector, thus the collector was not subjected to the 6% interest rate imposed under the act.

Continue reading the summary here.

Ortner v. Equifax: Consumer Has Standing to Proceed with FCRA Claim

A consumer discovered a debt on his credit report that showed a $0 balance but was more than 120 days overdue. The consumer disputed the debt to a credit reporting agency. The furnisher allegedly did not investigate the debt and continued to report it. The consumer sued the furnisher, who then moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 23:

Yarra v. Arias Bosinger: Condominium Association Dues Were Not Debts When the Underlying Property Was Used for Rental Income

A Florida district court held that a debt owed in relation to the purchase of a condominium intended to be used to generate rental income was not a debt as defined under the FDCPA or the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

Continue reading the summary here.

Lenorowitz v. Mosquito Squad: Consumer Receiving Voicemail Meets TCPA Class Requirements

It is sufficient under the TCPA for a consumer to demonstrate that a message containing a prerecorded voice was successfully delivered to his voicemail. Numerous courts have rejected the argument that the TCPA’s prohibition on making a call also requires the receipt of a phone call.

Continue reading the summary here.

Warta v. Porter, McGuire, & Kiakona: Court Holds SCRA Tolled FDCPA Statute of Limitations

A service member was fined for allowing his service dog to break Apartment Owner Association rules. A law firm hired to prosecute the matter charged a large amount of attorney’s fees and costs it attempted to collect from the consumer. The consumer sued the law firm for violating the FDCPA.

Continue reading the summary here.

Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more Daily Decision recaps and compliance resources.

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.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our Privacy Policy for more information. You may change your preferences on how cookies are stored by reviewing the settings on your browser.

The content on this site is presented for educational, general reference, and informational purposes only; is not intended to serve as legal or other advice; is not intended to be a full and exhaustive explanation of the law in any area; and should not replace the advice of your own legal counsel. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to the legal disclaimers in our Terms of Use. Review our Terms of Use for more information.

Friendly Reminder

Get continued access to ACA International’s wide array of resources, which can help you become more profitable, compliant and successful.

Renew your membership today to take advantage of tools you won’t find anywhere else:

  • Discounts on seminars, products, services and events
  • Resources to strengthen your compliance department
  • Industry-specific risk management products and services
  • Participation in ACA’s online community, The Hub
    Members-only website content
  • Professional development and training opportunities, and so much more!

If you have completed your renewal, please disregard this reminder.