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 FairDebtCollections Practices Act (FDCPA), finding that the defendant debt collector failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a bona fide error defense. In Lupia v. Medicredit, Inc. , 20-1294 (10th Cir.
Nyanhongo filed a class action alleging that hundreds of similar envelopes were mailed statewide in violation of Section 1692f(8) of the FairDebtCollection Practices Act (FDCPA). Article III of the Constitution limits the exercise of judicial power to cases and controversies. ” In DiNaples v.
A debt collector might sound like a character from a Charles Dickens novel, but if you’ve been contacted by one, you know they’re very much a reality of modern financial life. So, what exactly is a debt collector? These guidelines are designed to protect consumers and ensure fairdebtcollection practices.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the federal FairDebtCollection Practices Act (FDCPA) where it unintentionally sent a valid debtcollection communication to a non-debtor. Wagner” because the collection firm “believe[d] there is a William J.
2000) (FDCPA claim filed against shareholder of agency was frivolous: “The FairDebtCollection Practices Act is not aimed at the shareholders of debt collectors operating in the corporate form unless some basis is shown for piercing the corporate veil, which was not attempted here.”) (citation omitted); Pettit v.
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