The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the Eleventh Circuit (and a growing majority of courts) in rejecting the “Hunstein theory” of liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  In Shields v. Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc., the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of FDCPA claims for lack of standing, confirming that a debt collector’s use of an outside mail vendor does not constitute an actionable, concrete injury.… Continue Reading

In an unpublished opinion, a New Jersey federal district court has ruled that a plaintiff did not have Article III standing to assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based solely on her receipt of an allegedly misleading collection letter.

In Valentine v Unifund CCR, LLC; Distressed Asset Portfolio III, et al.Continue Reading

It’s official!  We have our first-ever federal court opinion evaluating the requirements of Regulation F!  Okay, maybe “evaluating” isn’t the right word.  “Reading Regulation F out loud” is more like it.

  • The Question: Does Regulation F require debt collectors to use the CFPB’s model validation notice (“MVN”) to comply with the FDCPA?
Continue Reading

Some people just don’t like change. New developments are often opposed by small groups prioritizing their own self-interest over the interests of the community at large. In real estate, these groups are sometimes known as “NIMBYs,” short for their rallying cry: “Not in My Backyard!” Well, it looks like debt collectors may have some NIMBYs of their own.… Continue Reading

The CFPB has issued an advisory opinion that addresses when the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act permits a debt collector to charge “pay-to-pay” or “convenience fees,” such as fees imposed for making a payment online or by phone. 

FDCPA section 808(1) prohibits debt collectors from collecting “any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.”  … Continue Reading

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. held last week that monthly mortgage statements required under the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z can constitute communications in connection with the collection of a debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA). … Continue Reading

The CFPB has issued its annual Fair Debt Collection Practices Act report covering the CFPB’s debt collection activities in 2021.  The report incorporates information from the FTC’s most recent annual letter to the CFPB describing its 2021 activities in the debt collection market, including information about the FTC’s enforcement actions involving collection practices directed at small businesses.… Continue Reading

A new decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in two consolidated cases analyzes the requirements for Article III standing in a FDCPA case.  It also addresses what a debt collector must show to establish that it maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid an error as required by the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense. … Continue Reading

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled that a mortgage servicer violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) by charging a $5 convenience fee to borrowers for monthly payments made by phone or online.

In Alexander v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Carrington, their mortgage servicer, challenging the convenience fees in which they alleged that the servicer had violated Section 14-202(11) of the MCDCA by engaging in conduct that violates the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) (Sec.… Continue Reading

The CFPB filed a complaint earlier this week in a New York federal district court against three companies that purchase defaulted debts (Corporate Defendants) and three individuals who are owners and/or officers of the Corporate Defendants (Individual Defendants).  (Click here to read the statement from United Holding Group, LLC, one of the Corporate Defendants, about the lawsuit.)… Continue Reading