Spencer Fane LLP Logo

Debtor

A federal district court in California denies class certification to a nationwide putative TCPA class of consumers against a debt collector who allegedly made more than 500 million prohibited calls

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued an order denying class certification to a nationwide putative class of consumers against The CBE Group, Inc. (“CBE”), which alleged that CBE made over 500 million calls to these consumers’ cell phones without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”).  Blair, et al. v. The CBE Group, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00134-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal. August 26, 2015).

The Sixth Circuit sheds light on meaning of “prior express consent” under the TCPA in a case involving hundreds of calls to a debtor’s cellphone by a creditor using an autodialer

One thing that telemarketers and other companies that communicate with their customers by calling their customer’s cellphones crave is clarity under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.  The Sixth Circuit recently shed some light on the meaning of “prior express consent” under the TCPA in connection with calls by a creditor to its debtor’s cellphone in the case of Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 14-4168 (6th Cir. August 21, 2015).

The Eleventh Circuit rules that Capital One is not a debt collector under the FDCPA with respect to defaulted credit card debt it acquired from HSBC

In the case of Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 14-14200 (August 21, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit had occasion to decide whether a bank that collects on defaulted debt it acquired from another bank is a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p.

A federal district in Pennsylvania dismisses a putative FDCPA class action based on the filing a proof a claim on a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy

I recently wrote about a decision from a federal district court in Alabama that sidestepped the Eleventh Circuit’s Crawford decision by finding that the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) were in irreconcilable conflict, and the FDCPA gave way to the Code on the question of whether the mere act of filing a proof of claim on a stale debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the FDCPA.

The bona fide error defense to FDCPA claims is alive and well in the Eleventh Circuit

In the case of Isaac, et al. v. RMB, Inc., et al., No. 14-11560 (11th Cir. March 17, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld summary judgment in favor of a debt collector based on the affirmative defense of bona fide error.  The case presents a good opportunity to see what type of evidence is needed to prevail on the defense.

A federal district court sidesteps Crawford in dismissing claim for FDCPA violation based on filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy

In a 2014 decision rued by debt collectors everywhere, the Eleventh Circuit in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) ruled that filing a proof of claim to collect a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Home mortgage lenders hire law firm to send 88,937 collection letters to defaulted borrowers: Borrowers allege this violated the FDCPA and a federal judge certifies the class

In Lori Jo Vincent, et al. v. The Money Store, Inc. et al, No. 03 cv 2876 (S.D.N.Y.  February 2, 2015), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class of home mortgage borrowers who defaulted on their loans and received uniform “breach letters” from a law firm sent on behalf of the defendant mortgage servicing company and the defendant lenders. 

The Sixth Circuit rules that making an offer to settle a valid but time-barred debt may give rise to an FDCPA violation.

In a case that will likely cause debt collectors seeking to collect time-barred obligations grave concern, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that making an offer to settle a time-barred debt at a discount could mislead an unsophisticated consumer to believe the debt could be enforced in court in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Buchanan v. Northland Group, Inc., No. 13-2523 (January 13, 2015).

Loan officer’s statements about lien priority in home mortgage transaction do not give rise to borrower’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation against lender

The North Carolina Supreme Court recently analyzed whether a loan officer owes a borrower a fiduciary duty in a home mortgage transaction.  Dallaire v. Bank of Am., ___N.C.___, 747 S.E.2d 535 (2013), decided June 12, 2014, No. 51PA13.  Jacques and Fernande Dallaire (“Borrowers”) purchased a home as their primary residence in 1998.  Seven years later they filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy due to unrelated business debts. 

FDCPA Summary Judgment Victory

We are pleased to report a victory in the Eastern District of Missouri in an FDCPA case.

1 2 Showing 1-10 of 12 results View All