A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
04/14/2023 2:20 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 April 11 – 14:
April 11:
Matteo v. EOS: Request to Pay Time-Barred Debt Did Not Violate FDCPA or Pennsylvania Law
The court found that a debt collection agency that sought a consumer’s voluntary repayment, but did not threaten litigation on a legally unenforceable debt, was not obligated to advise the consumer about the statute of limitation.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Shelton v. AmeriCredit: Reporting a Debt as Charged Off for Several Months is Not Misleading
A consumer alleged that a data furnisher reported inaccurate information to a CRA about a vehicle loan that was “charged off” in early 2022. The consumer stated that she had been “completely frustrated” trying to obtain a new vehicle because the inaccurate information on her credit report “ha[d] been getting her denied.” She sued the data furnisher for violating the FCRA.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Harrari v. Experian: Reporting Settled Accounts as Charged Off Did Not Violate the FCRA
A New Jersey district court found that charge offs constitute “adverse items of information” under the FCRA that can be reported by a CRA for up to seven years.
Continue reading the case summary here.
April 12:
Cornett v. Student Loan Solutions: Court Finds Collection Action Within Statute of Limitations
Because a consumer deposited her loan check, she was deemed to have accepted essential loan terms that were explicitly incorporated into the contract by reference, permitting the court to apply the longer statute of limitations for a written contract.
Continue reading the summary here.
Verma v. Walden University: Court Finds TCPA Plaintiff Had Standing
The court denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand his TCPA claim to state court because, among other relevant facts, the plaintiff alleged that he received more than one unwanted, unsolicited call to his cellphone within one year.
Continue reading the summary here.
Edwards v. Juan Martinez Inc.: Telemarketer Sues Consumer for Invasion of Privacy
A consumer sued a realty company for making a sales call when he was on the national Do Not Call Registry. The consumer had secretly recorded the sales call. The realty company filed two counterclaims against the consumer for illegally recording the sales call and for abuse of process.
Continue reading the summary here.
April 13:
Sage Telcom v. Sequium Asset Solutions: Texas State Court Grants Summary Judgment for Collector on Telephone Solicitation Claims
A state court granted summary judgment for a collector, either because it was not required to register under a Texas law addressing telephone sales solicitation or because the plaintiff did not incur a concrete or personal harm where the collector had called the plaintiff’s customers rather than the plaintiff.
Continue reading the summary here.
Maynard v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n: Towing Company’s Lien Sale Did Not Extinguish Creditor’s Loan
A consumer purchased a vehicle and subsequently defaulted on the loan. The car was supposed to be repossessed by a debt collector, but instead was towed away by a different company and later sold at auction to the consumer. The debt collector then repossessed the vehicle from the consumer after he had purchased the vehicle at the auction. The consumer sued the debt collector for violating the FDCPA for attempting to collect a debt that was no longer outstanding.
Continue reading the summary here.
Michleski v. Collection Bureau of Ft. Walton Beach: Court Reduces Excessive Attorney Fee Request
A Florida district court reduced an FDCPA plaintiff’s attorney fee request by 25%, finding that the plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates and the number of hours billed were excessive for “a simple case like this.”
Continue reading the summary here.
April 14:
Byrne v. Oregon One, Inc.: Court Dissolves Class and Awards Remaining Funds to Class Representative
A debt collector entered into a class-action settlement agreement and soon after filed for bankruptcy, which greatly reduced the amount the debt collector had to pay for the class settlement. A consumer who was the class representative in the case moved to have the class dissolved so that he could receive the remaining funds that were meant to be divided among the other class members.
Continue reading the summary here.
Riser v. Cent. Portfolio Control Inc.: Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend FCRA Claim
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and to amend her FCRA claim, finding that, among other things, while CRAs are not required to investigate legal disputes about the validity of a debt, furnishers may have to investigate and even highlight or resolve questions of legal significance.
Continue reading the summary here.
Strange v. GMR Processing: Court Limits FDCPA Damages to $1,000 Statutory Damages Despite Demonstrated Psychological Injury
Because the purpose of the FDCPA is to compensate for loss and not to deter bad conduct, a court only awarded a consumer $1,000 in statutory damages where the consumer offered credible evidence of psychological harm but did not demonstrate he suffered actual, financial damages.
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.
