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
Today’s webinar just happens to be on the topic of legal collections (register here) so it’s entirely timely to write about a court ruling involving a judgment. The background: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to notify him that the debt in question was time-barred.
A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a FairDebtCollection Practices Act case that centers over the language used by the plaintiff and whether it constituted a dispute of the debt or not. I decline to pay this debt.”
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the CFPBs unopposed motion for a 90-day stay in the litigation filed by Cornerstone CreditUnion League and Consumer Data Industry Association (the Plaintiffs). WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM AYLIX JENSEN OF MOSS & BARNETT: OnFebruary 6, the U.S. Stay tuned!
The borrowers most impacted by the consequences of this provision will be low- and moderate-income borrowers whose financial well-being could benefit the most from access to affordable credit from a creditunion.”. In March of 2019, SCOTUS unanimously held in Obduskey V.
The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) and the FairDebtCollection Practices Act (FDCPA) are two pro-consumer statutes. Businesses should be aware of each statute. When that happens, businesses need to be aware of their rights and the potential exposure under the FCCPA and the FDCPA. 2d 509 (Fla.
The Clayton Court was asked to decide the question of “whether Florida’s offer of judgment statute is preempted by [the federal FairDebtCollection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)].” in an effort to encourage settlement of disputes. Bryan , 753 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Most days, when it comes to writing about legal rulings, I tend to stick to rulings that are considered dispositive — where a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment or motion for judgment on the pleadings are ruled on — motions that can bring a case to an end. Today’s case is a little different.
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