InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court grants class certification to consumers alleging law firm collection letters violated FDCPA
On October 31, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class certification for a group of debtors in three states who alleged that the debt collection letters they received that were printed on law firm letterhead violated the FDCPA by falsely implying attorneys reviewed the underlying debts. The debt collector argued against certification because not all of the recipients of the letter at issue had consumer debts covered by the FDCPA, arguing “that there is no administratively feasible way to ascertain class members without doing individualized fact-finding.” The court disagreed, finding the plaintiff met the burden of demonstrating class members can be identified. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiff’s proposed methodology would rely on the business unit that sent the letters, as well as information in the debt collector’s records, to determine which accounts are covered by the FDCPA. Because the plaintiff “demonstrated an administratively feasible and reliable method for identifying class members,” the court granted class certification.
Debt collector settles for $9 million over allegedly illegal calling practices
On October 30, a third-party debt collector and its affiliates (defendants) entered into a stipulated final judgment in the Superior Court of California to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by the state of California over allegedly illegal debt collection calling practices. According to a press release issued by the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the defendants allegedly violated California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the FDCPA, and the TCPA by calling consumers with “excessive frequency,” continuing to call consumers even after being advised that they had reached the wrong number, and using a “predictive dialer” to place calls to consumers’ cell phones without their consent. By entering into the judgment, the defendants—who have not admitted to the allegations in the complaint—will, among other things, (i) pay $1 million in monetary relief; (ii) pay an $8 million civil penalty; (iii) maintain records of calls and complaints; (iv) conduct compliance training for employees responsible for outbound debt collection calls; and (v) conduct an annual third-party audit to ensure compliance with the settlement.
FTC, New York Attorney General sue New York debt collection operation
On November 1, the FTC announced a joint action with the New York Attorney General against a New York-based debt collection company for allegedly violating the FTC Act, the FDCPA, and New York state law by using false or deceptive tactics to collect money from consumers, sometimes resulting in the consumer paying more than what they allegedly owed. According to the complaint, the company’s employees threatened consumers with arrest or lawsuits while falsely posing as law enforcement officials or attorneys. Additionally, the employees allegedly added “more pressure” to consumers by telling them they owed more than the company’s records indicated they did, using forms to show a higher balance than the actual client balance—a practice known as “overbiffing.” On October 25, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted a temporary restraining order, halting the company’s allegedly illegal activity and freezing the company’s assets. The complaint seeks a (i) permanent injunction; (ii) consumer redress; and (iii) civil money penalties under New York law.
Interestingly, as covered by InfoBytes here, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a concurring statement in another recent FTC action, suggesting the FTC should seek to partner with other enforcement agencies that have the authority to obtain monetary settlements from FTC targets. In this complaint, the New York Attorney General is seeking civil money penalties against the debt collectors under New York General Business Law § 350-d.
7th Circuit holds individual who denies owing a debt can qualify as a consumer under FDCPA
On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held that an individual is a “qualified consumer” under the FDCPA, even when he is alleged by debt collectors to owe debts that he claims he does not owe. According to the opinion, a credit card was fraudulently opened in the plaintiff appellant’s name and was charged off, after default, to a debt collector who filed suit in an attempt to collect the debt. After the small-claims collection case was dismissed, the plaintiff appellant sued the debt collector for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Illinois Collection Agency Act. The district court dismissed the action, holding that, to be a “consumer” under FDCPA, the individual must “allege he actually owed a debt.” On appeal, the 7th Circuit reversed. It held that the plain language of FDCPA covers individuals “allegedly obligated to pay” a debt, which includes “obligations alleged by the debt collector as well.” As a result, individuals who are alleged by debt collectors to owe debts are consumers under the FDCPA, even if they deny having any connection to the debt or any obligation to pay it.
3rd Circuit says IRS reporting language may violate FDCPA
On September 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging a debt collector violated the FDCPA by including a statement noting that debt forgiveness may be reported to the IRS. The case was centered on the plaintiffs’ claim that letters sent to collect on debts that were less than $600, which contained the language “[w]e are not obligated to renew this offer. We will report forgiveness of debt as required by IRS regulations. Reporting is not required every time a debt is canceled or settled, and might not be required in your case,” were “false, deceptive and misleading” under the FDCPA because only discharged debts over $600 are required to be reported to the IRS. The district court dismissed the action, concluding the letters were not deceptive and the least sophisticated consumer would interpret the statement to mean in certain circumstances some discharges are reportable but not all are reportable.
Upon appeal, the 3rd Circuit disagreed with the district court, finding “the least sophisticated debtor could be left with the impression that reporting could occur,” notwithstanding the letter’s qualifying statement that reporting is not required every time a debt is canceled or settled, and therefore, the language could signal a potential FDCPA violation. Recognizing the industry’s regular use of form letters, the appeals court noted, “we must reinforce that convenience does not excuse a potential violation of the FDCPA.”
District Court partially dismisses student loan co-signer claims alleging violations of federal and D.C. debt-collection laws
On September 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia partially granted a student loan administrator’s and a law firm’s joint motion to dismiss, and granted a lender’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in a case involving a student loan co-signer’s claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), D.C. debt collection statute, and state law. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that her claims were tolled and dismissed the FDCPA claims against the loan administrator and firm because they were time-barred. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that the firm and the lender violated several provisions of the D.C. debt collection statute, concluding that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support an allegation that the defendants willfully violated the statute. However, the court found that the plaintiff included sufficient facts to support a claim under the D.C. statute against the loan administrator based on allegations that the administrator, among other things, (i) concealed its “lack of authorization to sue”; (ii) concealed the fact that it was acting as a collector without the authority to enforce the terms of the loan; and (iii) has a “long, well-documented history of filing debt collection lawsuits falsely claiming to be the lender and/or real party in interest.” Finally, the court held that plaintiff’s abuse of process and malicious prosecution actions failed to state a claim against any of the defendants.
Court finds no ECOA violation with credit union’s dispute-free credit report requirement
On August 28, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed an action against a credit union, holding that the credit union’s decision to consider only dispute-free credit reports of all applicants does not amount to a “prohibited basis” under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). According to the opinion, the credit union required the consumer to remove his disputed debts from his credit report in order for his application for a home equity loan to move forward. After the disputes were removed, the consumer’s credit score dropped below the minimum required by the credit union, and his application was denied. In December 2017, the consumer brought an action against the credit union, alleging that he was discriminated against in violation of ECOA for exercising his dispute rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The court rejected the consumer’s arguments, concluding that the FDCPA and the FCRA do not give a consumer a right to dispute debts, but rather a right to ensure that disputed debts are accurately reported as such. The court also rejected the consumer’s theory of recovery under ECOA, finding that his arguments were inconsistent with ECOA’s implementing regulation, Regulation B. The court determined that Regulation B allows a creditor to restrict the types of credit history that it will consider if the restrictions are applied to all applicants without regard to a prohibited basis. Because the dispute-free restriction was applied to all applicants of the credit union equally, the consumer’s claim failed.
1st Circuit holds homeowners who defaulted on an allegedly unlicensed mortgage loan cannot escape time bars for their claims
On August 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit held that homeowners who defaulted on a refinance loan on their Massachusetts property could not void the transaction or enjoin their property’s foreclosure sale. The appellate court determined that the homeowners’ claims that the lender violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Massachusetts consumer protection statute were all time-barred. The homeowners argued that the statute of limitations never began to run because the lender was not licensed to lend money in the state, making the original note and mortgage “akin to forgeries and thus ‘void ab initio,’” but the court held that there was “no authority for this unusual proposition.” The court also refused to toll the limitations period under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, which requires the plaintiff “to make a threshold showing of due diligence,” because the homeowners filed their claims more than five years after they retained counsel and ten years after they granted the mortgage at issue.
7th Circuit holds, without written appearance by attorney, law firm did not violate FDCPA by serving debtor directly
On August 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held that a law firm did not violate the FDCPA by serving a debtor a default motion because his attorney had not yet become the “attorney of record” under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 11 (Rule 11). According to the opinion, after being sued by the law firm on a creditor’s behalf, the debtor appeared pro se and later retained an attorney to represent her. The law firm moved for summary judgment and served the motion to the debtor and to the debtor’s new attorney, who had not yet filed a written appearance. The debtor alleged the law firm violated the FDCPA by contacting her while represented by counsel. The lower court entered summary judgment in favor of the debtor. Disagreeing with the lower court, the 7th Circuit reversed, finding that Rule 11 gave “‘express’ judicial ‘permission’ to serve the default motion directly on [the debtor]” from “a court of competent jurisdiction” as required by the FDCPA— which prohibits a debt collector from directly contacting a debtor who is represented by counsel absent “express permission” ." The panel noted that Illinois precedent makes it clear that under Rule 11, a lawyer can only become an attorney of record by filing a written appearance or other pleading with the court. Because a written appearance had not yet been made, the panel reasoned, Rule 11 expressly permitted the law firm to serve the debtor directly and therefore, the firm did not violate the FDCPA.
3rd Circuit reverses dismissal of FDCPA action over voicemail
On August 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative class action claim alleging a debt collector violated the FDCPA when it used an “alternative business name” in a voicemail. According to the opinion, the consumers allege the debt collector violated three sections of the FDCPA by leaving voicemail messages identifying itself by a different business name than the company’s corporate name. The lower court dismissed all three FDCPA claims for failure to state a claim. The panel affirmed the dismissal as to two counts of the amendment complaint, but reversed as to the third, finding that the consumers stated a plausible claim that the debt collector violated the FDCPA’s “true name” provision. The panel cited to FTC interpretive guidance, which notes a company may use a name other than its registered name so long as “it consistently uses the same name when dealing with a particular consumer.” The court found that the alternative name used in the voicemails is “neither [the company]’s full business name, the name under which it usually transacts business, nor a commonly used acronym of its registered name” and the name used is actually associated with other debt collection companies. Therefore, the consumers stated a plausible claim under the “true name” provision of the FDCPA.