Summary:
Rudlow, the attorney for WFS, brought a replevin action against Rawlinson and her nephew, for a vehicle which the nephew owned, subject to a lien held by WFS. Rawlinson was not a party to the note, but Rudlow believed Rawlinson either had possession of the vehicle or knew its location, since her nephew lived with her. Rawlinson brought a FDCPA claim in response.
The 4th Circuit began by holding that, just as, following Wilson v. Draper & Goldberg, PLLC, 443 F.3d 373, 375-76 (4th Cir.
Summary:
Providence Dane sued Boosahda in state court for $22,000.00 on a credit card debt assigned to Providence Dane from Chase and First USA. Boosahda counterclaimed for violations of TILA. After testifying at trial that he did not have any recollection of using or having a Chase or Fist USA credit card, Providence Dane attempted to have a paralegal testify that Providence Dane had obtained credit card statements showing Boosahda was liable for this debt, but such testimony was excluded as hearsay and the complaint of Providence Dane was dismissed.
Mrs. Warren’s husband died, owing a debt on a credit card to BB&T. Despite the credit card only being in the deceased husband’s name, BB&T, through its attorneys, Sessoms & Rogers, attempted on numerous occasions to collect the debt from Mrs. Warren.
This note discusses the circuit split that is found regarding whether the FDCPA applies to communications from a debt collector to a debtor's attorney between the Third, Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits.
