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 »

U.S. Supreme Court holds that a debt collector who files a time-barred proof of…

A debt collector who files a time-barred proof of claim is not engaging in false or deceptive conduct as defined by the FDCPA, according to a recent decision by the US Supreme Court. In Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 16-348, (May 15, 2017) the debtor filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy…

Read More »

Eleventh Circuit gives its “stamp of approval” to a bankruptcy disclaimer contained in a…

The Eleventh Circuit in Helman v. Bank of America, 15-13672, – Fed. Appx.– (11th Cir. April 12, 2017) concluded that the least sophisticated consumer would not be misled that it was personally liable for a discharged debt where the monthly statements sent by the debtor’s bank contained a statement that…

Read More »

Illinois court holds that the foreclosure of real estate is not an attempt to…

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held in Hahn v. Anselmo Lindberg Oliver LLC, 1:16-cv-06908 (Mar. 3, 2017) that the foreclosure of real estate is not an attempt to collect a debt under the FDCPA and a law firm that proceeds with foreclosure despite a pending bankruptcy…

Read More »

Action on a deficiency judgment not an action on a debt under Florida Collection…

In Dyck O’Neal, Inc. v. Ward, No. 2D15-2989 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2017) a Florida Appellate court found that a creditor need not comply with Section 559.715 of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) when attempting to enforce a final foreclosure judgment. In this case, after the…

Read More »

Credit reporting (regardless of error) and other servicing tasks were not attempts to collect…

In Green v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 15-CV-513-JDP (W.D. Wis. Jan. 18, 2017) the court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FDCPA claims because, despite the fact that some of the communications contained errors, including that Plaintiffs’ were past due on their loans, the purpose of the communications were not…

Read More »

Virginia District Court finds that communication is not an attempt to collect a debt…

A federal court in Virginia held in Lovegrove v. Brock & Scott, PLLC, No. 2:16CV418 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2017) that a Plaintiff’s knowledge of his bankruptcy discharge was critical in determining whether a communication from a debt collector was an attempt to collect a debt under the FDCPA. In…

Read More »