article thumbnail

Avoiding Overshadowing Claims

FDCPA Defense

Finally, the notice must contain “a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.” 1692g(a)(5). at § 1692g(a)(4), (5). at § 1692g(b). Pollard , 766 F.3d

Debtor 40
article thumbnail

The Limits On Direct And Vicarious Liability Under The FDCPA

FDCPA Defense

Even original creditors, who are not subject to the FDCPA, are being drawn into FDCPA litigation under various theories of recovery. What are the limits of vicarious liability under the FDCPA? For this reason, original creditors are not subject to the FDCPA (except in very limited circumstances).

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Can Recent Enforcement Actions Provide Guidance On The CFPB’s Position On UDAAPs?

FDCPA Defense

One method for identifying areas of potential concern, however, is to analyze the recent enforcement actions by the CFPB and other regulators filed against debt buyers and original creditors. Enforcement actions filed against original creditors can also provide guidance to debt buyers and other collectors about areas of CFPB concern.

Debtor 40
article thumbnail

For Attorneys Representing Community Associations: A Primer On FDCPA Class Actions And How To Avoid Them

FDCPA Defense

2016) (collection complaints violated FDCPA where they alleged debt would be “considered valid” if not disputed within 30 days of the date of the complaint); Tourgeman v. 2014) (collection complaints violated the FDCPA where they identified incorrect “originalcreditor that had made the loans to class members); McCollough v.

article thumbnail

Only "Material" Disputes Support A Claim Under Section 1692e(8) Of The FDCPA

FDCPA Defense

2009) (letter describing debt, which included interest applied by original creditor, as the "principal" amount owed to collector did not violate section 1692e: "If a statement would not mislead the unsophisticated consumer, it does not violate the FDCPA - even if it is false in some technical sense."); Miller v.

article thumbnail

The “Least Sophisticated Debtor” Is Getting More Sophisticated, And Has An Improved Memory Too

FDCPA Defense

3d at 645-46 (the “unsophisticated consumer, with a reasonable knowledge of her account’s history, would have little trouble concluding that the ‘principal balance’ included interest charged by [the original creditor].”); McNair v. [iii] See Wahl , 556 F.3d Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. , 3d 859, 871 (D.

Debtor 40