FDCPA Defense

AUGUST 22, 2016

Courts apply the very pro-consumer “least sophisticated debtor” standard when evaluating a collector’s communications, and most violations of the Act are “strict liability” – meaning the debtor can win the case without proving the collector intended to violate the statute. Hollins Law Firm , _F.3d

Debtor 40

Debtor Debt collector Law Firms Accrued Interest 40

Troutman Sanders

APRIL 22, 2021

The debt collector sent Hopkins a letter that itemized the principal balance, interest, fees and collection costs, and a total balance due. The letter identified interest and collection costs as “$0.00” for each, leaving the total balance the same as the principal. in interest and fees.”

Debtor 52

Debtor Debt collector Accrued Interest Collections 52

Troutman Sanders

JANUARY 11, 2021

With these holdings, the Seventh Circuit stated that simply alleging a procedural violation, confusion, or annoyance under the FDCPA does not constitute an injury-in-fact and that plaintiffs need to show real harm resulting from their responses to debt collectors’ actions to have Article III standing in federal court. In Bazile v.

Accrued Interest 52

Accrued Interest Judgment Fair Debt Collection Law Firms 52

FDCPA Defense

FEBRUARY 1, 2018

Duty to disclose accruing interest, fees or other charges A significant recent trend in FDCPA case law involves courts that have imposed new disclosure obligations that are not found in the plain language of the Act. Two decisions out of the Second Circuit that have sparked a wave of new lawsuits against collectors are Avila v.

Accrued Interest 40

Accrued Interest Foreclosure Debtor Debt collector 40