Summary: Leaving aside the multiple foreclosure proceedings and subsequent appeals, Mr. Garvey eventually filed a short-lived, pro se Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Attorneys for Seterus filed a Notice of Appearance and Objection to Confirmation. Mr. Garvey then sent a demand to the attorneys, as debt collectors, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
By Ed Boltz, 21 June, 2016
Summary: Conteh brought suit against Shamrock and its attorney for filing a writ of execution that overstated the amount owed. The actual judgment balance was $1,583.96, but the writ of execution asserted that Conteh owed $1,748.98. Following Powell v. Palisades Acquisition, 782 F. 3d 119 (4th Cir. 2014) the Court of Appeal reiterated that Conteh’s actual response was not the relevant standard, but instead how “the least sophisticated consumer” would have understood the overstatement.
By Ed Boltz, 27 January, 2015
Summary: Ms. Powell incurred a credit card debt original with Direct Merchants. After losing her job, she fell into default and Platinum Financial, the assignee of the debt, obtained a judgment against Ms. Powell. Several years later, Platinum Financial sold the debt to Palisades Acquisition, whose attorney filed an Assignment of Judgment that erroneously stated the outstanding balance owed. Ms.
By Ed Boltz, 15 July, 2014
Olson raised FDCPA claims in federal court against Midland, which had brought a debt collection action in state court. These claims were asserted within a year of when Olson first appeared in the state court debt collection action, but more than a year after the alleged violations.
By Ed Boltz, 3 June, 2014
Summary: Fontell brought suit against her Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”)alleging violation of the FDCPA, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”). When the district court did not grant her summary judgment on these claims, she appealled. The Court of Appeals held that her assertion that the HOA violated the MCDCA by untimely bringing suit against her was not supported by evidence sufficient as a matter of law to grant summary judgment under Rule 56(a).
By Ed Boltz, 6 May, 2014
Summary: Hensel had student loans of more that $90,000. In November 2012, he received two bills for late fees in the total amount of $68.28. In response, on December 9, 2012, Hensel sent XBS a check for $68.28 attached to a letter that asserted the late fees violated the FDCPA, that assessment of the late fees had harmed his ability to purchase a home, and proposing to release his claims if XBS cancelled his remaining student loans, with cashing of the $68.28 to constitute acceptance.
By Ed Boltz, 22 May, 2013
Summary: Randle brought a complaint against the Defendants for violations of the FDCPA and sought certification of her case as class action. Prior to any class certification, the Defendants settled, agreeing to pay $6,000 “in full final settlement of all her claims,” plus attorney’s fees related to her individual claims. Counsel then submitted requests for $89,083.69, which was reduced by the district court to $76,876.59.
By Ed Boltz, 6 February, 2013
Summary: Shortly before their divorce, the Plaintiff’s then wife obtained a credit card in his name, without his knowledge. Several years later, the Plaintiff discovered the credit card on his credit report and also began to receive collection letters and calls. These ceased until there was renewed collection activity (which is not described in the opinion) starting in January 2011, in response to which the Plaintiff retained counsel to demand verification of the debt.
By Ed Boltz, 10 October, 2012
Summary: Ms. McLean was first admitted to ManorCare, a nursing home, in July 2006, signing a contract (through her son, James McLean, who held her Power of Attorney) agreeing to all costs, including attorneys’ fees, for collection of unpaid amounts. The contract provided that it would remain in effect if she was discharged but re-admitted within 15 days. In 2007, following her discharged from the nursing home, Mr. Ray sued Ms. McLean on behalf of ManorCare, with the matter being resolved by the parties. Ms.
By Ed Boltz, 15 May, 2012
Summary: Plaintiff brought a complaint against Defendant for monies allegedly owed on a credit card. Defendant answered and raised counterclaims, to which Plaintiff failed to reply. Consequently, default was entered on the counterclaims with $4,500.00 in actual damages, plus $17,912.11 in costs, including attorneys’ fees. Defendant appealed, questioning, among other things, the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeal held that the standard for reviewing an award of attorneys’ fees was that "the record must contain findings of fact as to the time and l