This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The background: The plaintiff, a consumer who made mortgage payments through an online payment service, filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, a loan servicer, alleging that the $5 convenience fee charged per payment violated multiple California consumer protection laws including the Rosenthal FairDebtCollection Practices Act.
Forster & Garbus LLP , a New York district court granted the defendant debt collector’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint in a FairDebtCollection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. In its holding, the court emphasized that, pursuant to the holding in Avila v.
On December 15, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided four cases which all dealt with the issue of standing within the context of the FairDebtCollection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressing whether a debt collector violates the FairDebtCollection Practices Act by accurately stating that it is seeking to collect $0.00 Recovery Servs.,
After Randy Hopkins allegedly failed to pay a bill, the account was referred to collections. The letter identified interest and collection costs as “$0.00” for each, leaving the total balance the same as the principal. Collecto, Inc. ,
In a subsequent letter, the agency stated that the principal was accruinginterest at the rate of 12%, which was followed by an email stating that the rate was 8%, which was followed by another letter stating that the rate was again 12%. A number of communications also included conflicting interest calculations.
Attorneys and other entities that regularly engage in collection work for community associations may be subject to the requirements of the FairDebtCollection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. as well as analogous state laws governing the consumer collection process.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 19,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content