Seventh Circuit affirms reduction of fee petition on FDCPA verdict from $187,410 to $10,875

The Seventh Circuit observed in Paz v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 17-3259 (7th Cir. May 15, 2019) that “[s]ometimes settling a case is the only course that makes sense”. It affirmed a district’s reduction of a debtor’s fee petition on an FDCPA verdict from $187,410 to $10,875 concluding the…

Read More »

Seventh Circuit holds dunning letter not misleading by including validation notice on the second…

The Seventh Circuit in O’Boyle v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., 910 F.3d 338, 341–48 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) affirmed a Wisconsin district court’s ruling that a letter which stated that important information was on the back of its first page, but the required validation notice was actually on the…

Read More »

Illinois district court holds that filing an unsuccessful foreclosure action is not a violation…

In Skibbe v. U.S. Bank, et al. No. 16 C 192 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2018), the United State District Court for the Northern District of Illinois District granted summary judgment to a mortgagee and the firm retained to handle a state court foreclosure on an FDCPA claim which asserted…

Read More »

Utah district court finds that state law debt collection claims are not barred when…

In Naranjo v. The Cherrington Firm, LLC, 2-17-cv-00645 (Jan. 22, 2018) the United State District Court for the District of Utah found in favor of the consumer that his Utah Consumer Sales Protection Act (“UCSPA”) claim was not barred by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). In Naranjo, the…

Read More »

Communications in connection with the renegotiation of a loan are not debt collection under…

A federal appeals court in Texas confirmed in Clark v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc., Tr. 2006-HE3, No. 16-11806 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2018) that communications made in connection with a loan modification agreement doo not relate to the collection of a debt…

Read More »

7th Circuit’s FDCPA “safe harbor” language does not save debt collector

In Boucher v. Financial System of Green Bay, Inc., No. 17-2308 (7th Cir. Jan. 17, 2018), the plaintiff-debtor sued a debt collector under the FDCPA alleging that debtor’s dunning letters were false and misleading because they threatened to impose “late charges and other charges” that could not lawfully be imposed…

Read More »

Debtor did not suffer an “informational injury” under FDPCA where she did not seek…

In Wolter v. Anselmo Lindberg Oliver, LLC, No. 16 C 4205 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2017) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a debtor did not suffer a an “informational injury” sufficient to establish standing where she did not seek to compel the debt…

Read More »

Florida court holds consumer has no standing to sue under the FDCPA where communication…

A consumer in a state court collection action brought suit under the FDCPA contending that the debt collector’s response to the consumer’s motion to dismiss the state court case constituted a communication in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The district court held that the response was a “formal pleading”…

Read More »

Debt collector cannot invoke FDIC’s safe harbor when relying on precedent that is later…

The issue in *Oliva v Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore*, No. 15-2516 (7th Cir. July 24, 2017) (en banc) was whether a debt collector who violated the venue provision of the FDCPA can avoid liability on the ground that it was relying on controlling circuit precedent interpreting the statute when…

Read More »

Supreme Court resolves conflict and holds that a purchaser of defaulted debt is not…

The Supreme Court in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 16-349 (June 12, 2017) resolved a conflict among various circuits as to whether a person who buys debt is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. The Court sided with the Fourth Circuit in holding that by buying debt that…

Read More »