A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
02/03/2023 1:10 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 Jan. 31 to Feb. 3:
Jan. 31:
Rocke v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt: Court Holds Collector’s Letter Violates FDCPA Dispute Requirements
Unlike other sections of the FDCPA, Section 1692g(a)(3), does not require a debtor’s denial of the validity of the alleged debt to be in writing. Accordingly, the defendant violated the statue when he informed a consumer that unless he notified the collector in writing that he disputed the validity of the debt, the collector would assume that this debt is valid. On the other hand, the statute does require consumers to submit a dispute in writing to obtain verification or original creditor information.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Levins v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery: Court Finds No Injury Related to Agency’s Use of An Acronym
A court held that even if the plaintiff could establish that a debt collector’s use of acronym instead of its “true name” violated the FDCPA, the plaintiff failed to allege any harm sufficient to establish Article III standing.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Owoh v. Sena: Court Holds Consumer Must Object to Proof of Claim Amount Before Confirmation Hearing
A consumer claimed that an attorney filed a proof of claim that misstated the amount due in violation of the FDCPA.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Feb. 1:
Clarke v. Client Services: Collector Ordered to Pay Attorney’s Fees for Wrongful Removal
To establish Article III standing required to support removal to federal court, a plaintiff’s complaint must allege something more than embarrassment or stress. Likewise, a plaintiff’s state of confusion resulting from an FDCPA-deficient communication, without any ensuing detriment, is not a concrete injury. A court can require payment of costs and attorney’s fees incurred as a result of removal if the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.
Continue reading the summary here.
Snyder v. LVNV: Consumer’s Claims of Future Harm Was Not a Concrete Injury
A consumer received a settlement offer for a debt that had been reduced to judgment. The consumer claimed the letter was misleading because the letter did not state when the settlement offer expired or that interest was accruing. The debt collector moved for summary judgment.
Continue reading the summary here.
Silver v. Fairbank: Court Takes Judicial Notice of Plaintiff’s Previous Litigation in Dismissing his FCRA Claim
A Utah court adopted the report and recommendation of the court’s magistrate judge, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims and taking judicial notice of the plaintiff’s previous litigation where other courts dismissed identical claims and declared him to be a vexatious litigant.
Continue reading the summary here.
Feb. 2:
Cooper v. Nat’l Credit Adjusters: Third Party Does Not Have Standing to Litigate FDCPA Claim Assigned by Consumer
A consumer disputed a trade line on her credit report and later found that the debt collector did not mark it as disputed. She assigned her FDCPA claim to a third party who sued the debt collector in court. The debt collector moved to dismiss for lack of standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Baltasar v. Nationwide Credit Inc.: State Court Finds Email’s Opt-Out Notice Was Clear and Conspicuous
An Illinois state court found that an emailed collection notice did not violate Reg F or the FDCPA because, contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the email provided the required opt-out provision clearly and conspicuously as required under Reg F.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bempah v. Midland Credit: Court Reduces Attorneys’ Fees Requested by Consumer in FDCPA Case
To fulfill their duty to submit accurate filings, an attorney using forms to prepare a complaint alleging FDCPA claims must expend effort including discussing the facts with the client, compiling, reviewing, and redacting exhibits, ensuring case law is current and the facts are properly pled, and drafting the other additional documentation such as civil file cover sheet and filing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Feb. 3:
Warsco v. Creditmax Collection Agency: 7th Circuit Overrules Precedential Case Impacting Garnishment by Collector
For purposes of the preferential transfer section of the bankruptcy code, a transfer occurs under federal law when garnished money changes hands, as opposed to the date the garnishment order was signed or the date someone learns of that order.
Continue reading the summary here.
Boyer v. TransUnion: Reporting Closed Account With $0 Balance and Late Payment History Not Misleading
A Connecticut district court held that reporting an account as closed with a $0 balance, but with a historical late payment history, was not inaccurate or misleading under the FCRA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Vaughn v. Transit Employees FCU: Consumer’s FCRA Claim Survives Dismissal
A consumer claimed his credit report was riddled with factual inaccuracies. He also claimed a data furnisher did not reasonably investigate his dispute as it did not review the letter that was included in the dispute sent to the data furnisher by the CRA.
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.
