Home Credit report Multiple addresses on the validation notice D …

Multiple addresses on the validation notice D …

6
0

Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers case summaries relevant to ACA members. Members can also submit cases for review to our compliance team at [email protected].

Here are the cases covered from September 21 to 24:

September 21

Silver c. Dystrup-Chiang: Court dismisses FDCPA claims lacking factual detail

Since a consumer’s claims contained only a stripped-down narrative or stereotypical recitation of the elements of the unfair debt collection claims and did not include any factual information to flesh out the claims, the court dismissed the claims without prejudice to failing to meet the minimum pleading requirements considered in Iqbal and Twombly.

Continue reading the summary here.

Hall c. Altus Legal: hiring a lawyer is not a concrete prejudice

An Illinois district court found that, because hiring a lawyer cannot establish standing, the consumer’s claim that a “duty to defend” in a foreclosure action was not damage sufficient to justify the quality.

Continue reading the summary here.

Green v. Innovis: the consumer has not provided proof of the supplier’s lack of reasonable procedures

The consumer in this case disputed his mortgage line of credit on his credit report. The Consumer Information Agency (CRA) investigated the dispute and removed the business line in question. The consumer sued the CRA saying it lacked “reasonable procedures” to investigate the disputes.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 22

Friend c. Cach: FDCPA claims dismissed due to lack of concrete injury

When a consumer failed to establish that he had suffered concrete harm attributable to an alleged violation of a collector’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the court ruled that the consumer lacked standing to sue and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction in the matter.

Continue reading the summary here.

Kleinman v. Forster & Garbus: validation letter stating that trial will not start until after validation period expires, does not violate FDCPA

One consumer claimed that a collection letter overshadowed the validation period because it could be interpreted as a threat of impending litigation. He also claimed the letter contained conflicting information as well as an intimidating letterhead that overshadowed the validation period. The debt collector has requested a judgment on the pleadings.

Continue reading the summary here.

Lueck v. The Bureaus & Stoneleigh: Lack of quality for a letter marked “personal and confidential”

An Illinois district court held that while the presence of the phrase “personal and confidential” on the envelope addressed to the consumer may have violated Section 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, this alone was not sufficient to establish quality without prejudice.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 23

Van Connor v. One Life Am .: Court dismisses request for interlocutory appeal

A South Carolina district court declined to certify an interlocutory appeal, citing the majority of decisions as well as the recent 6th Circuit ruling at Lindenbaum, ruling that the Supreme Court’s AAPC ruling applied retroactively, leaving the party no waived of the TCPA robotic call restriction in effect during the interim period.

Continue reading the summary here.

Pinyuk v. The CBE Group: several addresses on the validation notice did not violate the FDCPA

A New York district court found that a letter listing three addresses for the debt collector was not misleading or deceptive under the FDCPA when the addresses were read in context of the entire letter.

Continue reading the summary here.

Epps v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing: letter indicating that the debt is paid in full and including the mini-Miranda is not misleading under the FDCPA

The consumer received a letter from a debt collector advising her that her debt was paid in full and that this was a communication from a debt collector. The consumer claimed it was a violation of the FDCPA and filed a complaint. The court ruled that the letter was not misleading.

Continue reading the summary here.

September 24

Sturm v. Alpha Recovery Corp. : Collector Wins Summary Judgment in FDCPA Action

Since the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act only requires a collector to identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, a court rejected consumer arguments that a collector must show the entire chain of title to the debt. in question.

Continue reading the summary here.

Goodell v. Van Tuyl Grp. : TCPA litigants who lacked standing were allowed to proceed to a judicial inquiry

Consumers have received calls from car dealerships after asking that the calls stop. Consumers sued the company that owns the dealerships, claiming it was vicariously liable for alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act by telephone by dealers. The court concluded that the consumers did not have standing to pursue their claim, but allowed them to conduct an investigation to gather evidence to the contrary.

Continue reading the summary here.

Tolliver v. National credit systems: the presumed risk of financial or reputational damage is not sufficient to claim a status

A Wisconsin district court found that the consumer had presented no evidence to support his alleged risk of financial or reputational harm.

Continue reading the summary here.

If you have recently obtained legal advice that may benefit other ACA members, email it to us: [email protected].

  • Join the discussion on legal and compliance topics with your fellow member lawyer program community members on The Hub. Just log in to The center and select Member Advocate Program from the Communities menu.
  • The ACA’s day-to-day decision is fed by ACA’s litigation defense and compliance teams.


Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here