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
17, 2021), the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgement in favor of the plaintiff in a claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), finding that the defendant debtcollector failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a bona fide error defense. The defendant, Medicredit, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a debtcollector did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) where it unintentionally sent a valid debt collection communication to a non-debtor. A collection firm obtained a default judgment over a debtor named “William J.
When a business owes another business, the owed entity may engage a commercial debt collection agency to recover the debt on their behalf. These agencies employ various strategies to recover the debt, including negotiation, mediation, or legal action. No Win, No Fee: This model offers risk-free debt recovery.
12, 2019), the defendant debtcollector sent a collection letter to the consumer in an envelope which, on its face, displayed a QR code. When scanned, the QR code revealed the debtcollector’s internal account number. The consumer filed suit asserting the envelope violated 15 U.S.C.
How can debtcollectors avoid liability for the conduct of others? For example, generally speaking, the Act applies only to “debtcollectors” who regularly attempt to collect debts that are “due another.” or an assignee of a debt, as long as the debt was not in default at the time it was assigned.”).
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