Summary:
fdcpa
By Ed Boltz, 11 December, 2021
Summary:
By Ed Boltz, 13 April, 2021
Summary:
Ms. Carter brought suit against her bank, Capital One, for complying with an IRS levy by taking $1,279.41 from her account, arguing that Capital One had violated the FDCPA. Finding that "an obligation to pay that 'arises solely by operation of law' is not a debt covered by the FDCPA" the district court dismissed the case.
Commentary:
By Ed Boltz, 27 January, 2021
Summary:
By Ed Boltz, 3 September, 2020
Summary:
By Ed Boltz, 5 February, 2019
Abstract:
Over the past several years, chapter 13 debtors have used the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) as a tool to challenge debt buyers who file massive numbers of proofs of claim for debt for which the statute of limitations has run. In Midland Funding v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim for time-barred debt does not violate the FDCPA.
By Ed Boltz, 9 October, 2018
Summary:Ā
In apparent connection with a foreclosure,Ā Richardson, acting pro se, brought and FDCPA suit for failure to adequately verify debts under 15 U.S.C.Ā Ā§ 1692(g) against Shapiro & Brown, Nationstar Mortgage and Rushmore Loan Management.Ā In a very terse one-page memorandum opinion, the district court dismissed the case due to res judicata and the statute of limitations.Ā It can be surmisedĀ only from the brief filed by Nationstar at the district court with its Motion to Dismiss, that Richardson had previously raised FDCPA claims in an at
By Ed Boltz, 4 October, 2018
Summary:
Koepplinger, as a putative class representative, alleged that Seterus would send North Carolina residents who were more than 45 day delinquent on mortgage payments its āNC Final Letterā, which stated, in pertinent part, that:
āIf full payment of the default amount is not received by us . . .
By Ed Boltz, 25 August, 2017
Ā
Summary:
Default Judgment was entered in favor of Ms. Deal for violations of the FDCPA by Trinity Hope Associates, which failed to respond to the Complaint.
Commentary:
The only aspect that is interesting is that this is a 10-page opinion finding default, where the defendant did not answer.
For a copy of the opinion, please see:
Deal v. Trinity Hope Associates, LLC- Default Judgment under FDCPA
By Ed Boltz, 23 August, 2017
Summary:
Ms. Mungo-Craig brought suit against Navient, first in state court and then after removal in federal district court, alleging violations of the FDCPA and North Carolina Debt Collection Act. The district court denied her motion to remand, finding that it did have federal question jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the FDCPA and supplemental jurisdiction for the other state law claims, as they arose from the same common nucleus of facts. It then granted the Motion to Dismiss brought by Navient finding that Ms.