A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
01/28/2022 1:00 P.M.
4 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 January 25 – 28:
Gartner v. AR Solutions: State Court Grants Summary Judgment for Collector on FDCPA Claims
Court found consumer could not recover damages for alleged violations of the FDCPA from a collector because a preponderance of evidence showed the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the collector’s maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.
Wolf v. Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen: Law Firm Had Permissible Purpose to Access Consumer’s Credit Report
An Arizona district court found that the collection of unpaid homeowner’s association assessments provided a permissible purpose under the FCRA for a law firm to access a consumer’s credit report.
Alexander v. Carrington Mortg.: 4th Circuit Reverses District Court’s Decision on Convenience Fees
The defendant was accused of violating the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act by charging $5 in convenience fees to borrowers who paid monthly mortgage bills online or by phone. The case was dismissed in district court. On appeal the 4th Circuit found that, because the debt collector charged an amount that was not permitted by law, the consumers can proceed with some (but not all) of their claims.
Soto v. Financial Recovery Services: No Standing for Letter Vendor Claims
In a Hunstein-styled letter vendor case, a New York district court granted a consumer’s motion to remand his FDCPA claims to state court on the basis that he lacked Article III standing.
Lee v. Rausch: Court Remands FDCPA Action Due to Lack of Standing
The court found the consumer’s claims of possible harm arising from confusion about whether there was meaningful attorney involvement failed to plead a concrete injury in fact, and so the court remanded the case.
Uvaldo v. Germaine L. Off.: Consumer Had Standing, But Most Claims Dismissed
The consumer was sued on a deficiency balance for a repossessed vehicle. The debt was reduced to judgment. The consumer sued the debt collector for violating the FDCPA, but the debt collector claimed the consumer did not have standing.
Hustedt v. Hunter Warfield: Federal Court Remands FDCPA Claims to State Court
After finding a consumer’s complaint raising FDCPA claims lacked allegations of concrete harm necessary to trigger Article III standing and federal jurisdiction, the court questioned whether, upon remand, the state court might compel the consumer to amend her complaint to make her injury allegations plain, thereby enabling the collector to again remove the action to federal court.
Jackson v. First Financial: Excluding Name of Original Creditor on Complaint Not