Tag Archive for: FDCPA

Failure to Disclose Claim in Bankruptcy Petition

/in , /by

Lewis v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC 

The Debtor filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in NJ.  The Debtor did not disclose his FDCPA action and received a discharge.

The debtor  then filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant sent him a letter in an attempt to collect a debt that contained a “mini-Miranda” warning in a box entitled “Account Details.” According to the debtor, by mislabeling his legal rights as “Account Details,” the defendant’s correspondence was misleading and designed to confuse the debtor as to the nature of the debt and his rights.

Portfolio Recovery Associates argued that the debtor lacked standing to sue because he failed to schedule the lawsuit as a personal asset. 

 Section 541(a)(1) of title 11 of the U.S. Code provides that a bankruptcy estate comprises “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” In re Allen, 768 F.3d 274, 281 (3d Cir. 2014). The scope of Section 541(a)(1) is broad, and includes possible legal causes action. Id. It imposes upon a debtor an ongoing affirmative obligation to disclose all assets and liabilities to the bankruptcy court before discharge, including pending and contingent claims. A failure to list an asset as property of the bankruptcy estate does not prevent it from becoming property of the estate.

With regards to undisclosed claims see  Schafer v. Decision One Mortg. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56639, *12 (E.D. Pa. July 1, 2009). In order for a debtor to obtain standing, the trustee must abandon the unscheduled claim, whether voluntarily or pursuant to a court order. 11 U.S.C. § 554(a)-(b).

 

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy 19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761

Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

 Clearwater Bankruptcy Attorney, Clearwater Bankruptcy Lawyer, Clearwater Bankruptcy, Clearwater Estate Planning Attorney,  Pinellas Estate Planning Attorney, Pinellas Probate Attorney #FileLocallyDontOverpay #ClearwaterBankruptcy #ClearwaterBankruptcyAttorney #ClearwaterEstatePlanning #ClearwaterProbate

Crawford Claim For Time Barred Debts

/in , , /by

In Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the court held that a debt collector violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e, when it files a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case on a debt that it knows to be time-barred.  The court concluded that, although the Code allows all creditors to file proofs of claim in bankruptcy cases, the Code does not at the same time protect those creditors from all liability.  Debt collectors – may be liable under the FDCPA for bankruptcy filings they know to be time-barred.  http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/15-11240/15-11240-2016-05-24.html

 

 

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy 19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761

Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

 Clearwater Bankruptcy Attorney, Clearwater Bankruptcy Lawyer, Clearwater Bankruptcy, Clearwater Estate Planning Attorney,  Pinellas Estate Planning Attorney, Pinellas Probate Attorney #FileLocallyDontOverpay #ClearwaterBankruptcy #ClearwaterBankruptcyAttorney #ClearwaterEstatePlanning #ClearwaterProbate

2nd Circuit- Servicing Notice Not Exempt from FDCPA

/in , , , , , /by

A case which may change how you proceed in your foreclosure defense recently came out.  I have listed a brief synopsis of it below.   So discuss how this may apply to your case contact us for your free consultation.

The mortgage servicer argued that because the purpose of the servicing transfer notice was to provide transfer-of-servicing information in order to comply with the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), not to collect the debt, it had no obligation to provide the information required by the FDCPA.

The Second Circuit side-stepped the issue, “concluding that an attempt to collect a debt—which we believe the Letter was—qualifies as a communication ‘in connection with the collection of any debt.’” They also held that viewed objectively it was an attempt to collect since it (a) referred to the consumer’s particular debt;  (b) instructed him to send payments to the new servicer at a particular address;  (c) contained boilerplate language expressly stating that “this is an attempt to  collect upon a debt” specifically referencing the FDCPA; and, (d) warned that he must dispute the debt’s validity within 30 days after receiving the letter or the debt would be assumed to be valid.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/32503ca2-ffec-4f95-9eaf-f244781216b8/1/doc/14-191_opn.pdf

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

Time Barred Debt in Chapter 13

/in , , , , /by

Debts that are past the statute of limitations are considered time-barred debts. The following case law  sho0ws that time-barred debts are not allowed in the Eleventh Circuit, which is Florida’s Circuit.

Crawford v. LVNV Funding LLC  785 F3d 1254 (11th Cir. July 10,2014) 

Proof of claim was filed on a time-barred debt in Chapter 13. this was a violation of  1692e- which prohibits  ” any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt” and Section 1692f which prohibits a debt collector from using ” unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”

Creditors filing bankruptcy proofs of claims will now be subject to the FDCPA, at least in the Eleventh Circuit, but there is renewed hope for certain defenses, such as the litigation privilege.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15631228362360253615&q=Crawford+v.+LVNV+Funding+LLC++785+F3d+1254+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Bazemore v Jefferson Capital Systems LLC  (SD Georgia, May 15,2015)

Jefferson motion to enforce arbitration was ruled groundless  with regards to the FDCPA claim.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10648902652621483690&q=Crawford+v.+LVNV+Funding+LLC++785+F3d+1254+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

SD FL Confirms Communications Sent Only to Debtor’s Counsel Not Actionable Under FDCPA

/in , , , /by

In Maignan v. Seterus, Inc., No. 14-CV-22488 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2015), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida found that an allegedly deceptive communication to a plaintiff’s attorney, as opposed to the plaintiff himself, is not actionable under either the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or its state counterpart, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).  

The action was dismissed  with prejudice a borrower’s action under both the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(e)(2) and (f)(1) (“FDCPA”) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.72(9) (“FCCPA”), confirming that communications directly solely to a debtor’s attorney are not actionable.

The Eleventh Circuit’s “least sophisticated consumer” test, a communication might violate the FDCPA if the language used by the debt collector tends to mislead the least sophisticated recipients of a debt collector’s letters and telephone calls does not apply to attorneys for borrower.

Order and Opinion (11Feb15) – Dismissal w Prejudice

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

 

Florida Trial Court Rules Mortgagee’s Notice Including Info as to Overdue Payments, Amount of Arrears Was Not an Attempt to Collect a Debt

/in , , , /by

Robinson v Wells Fargo (FCCPA, Brevard County FL)

A Florida trial court  held that a mortgagee’s direct communication to a borrower regarding funds applied to the loan (which included information as to overdue payments, amount of arrears, and the status of loss mitigation) did not constitute a debt collection communication, and therefore did not violate the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act’s prohibition on communicating directly with a consumer with knowledge that the consumer is represented by an attorney. 

The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (hereinafter FCCPA) defines communication as “the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.”  See §559.55(5).

Under the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person shall “[c]ommunicate with a debtor if the person knows that the debtor is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address, unless the debtor’s attorney fails to respond within 30 days to a communication from the person, unless the debtor’s attorney consents to a direct communication with the debtor, or unless the debtor initiates the communication.”  See §559.72(18).

The Florida trial court held that the correspondence at issue was “informational and not an attempt to collect a debt,” and was not a prohibited communication in violation of §559.72(18).

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

Fair Debt Collection Act and Offer of Setttlement

/in , , , /by
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a settlement offer for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness, if the settlement offer does not also include an offer of judgment.    
 

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

False Claim under FDCPA

/in , , , /by

The Eleventh Circuit held that debtors’ complaint stated a false representation claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, where the debt validation/1692g notice identified the loan servicer who started servicing the loan after it was in default as the creditor.”

The Lender transferred the serving rights to the mortgage and note. The Loan Servicer hired a law firm to foreclose. The law firm sent a notice to the Debtor stating that the notice was being sent pursuant to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) to collect on the debt. The notice also identified the loan servicer as the creditor on the loan.

The Debtor filed suit against the Law Firm in federal district court, claiming that the notice sent to him by the Law Firm violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA by falsely representing that the loan servicer was the creditor on the loan. The Debtor claimed that the loan servicer, having been assigned a debt already in default solely for purposes of collecting on the debt, was not a creditor under the FDCPA. The Court found that even if the loan servicer were not a creditor under the FDCPA, it was harmless error to use the term with respect to the servicer, because the loan servicer had the authority to foreclose and otherwise act as the creditor on the loan. See 15 U.S.C. § §1692a(40; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692g(a)(2), 1692k(a).

However, the Court found that the Debtor’s complaint contained allegations as to the date of default, that the debt was assigned to the loan servicer after the default, thus the law firm violated the FDCPA by falsely identifying the loan servicer as the creditor in its debt collection notice.

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

SUE OR BE SUED CLAUSE

/in , , /by

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals  held that Federal National Mortgage Association’s (“Fannie Mae”) federal corporate charter confers federal question jurisdiction over claims brought by or against Fannie Mae.

The Ninth Circuit  held that under the rule announced in American National Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992), Fannie Mae’s federal charter confers federal question jurisdiction over claims brought by or against Fannie Mae. The sue-and-be-sued clause in Fannie Mae’s charter authorizes Fannie Mae “to sue and be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. §1723a(a).

 

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net

Summary Judgment of Debt Collector Reversed

/in , /by

Foreclosue Defence Lawyer

The Sixth Circuit reversed an award of summary judgment in favor of a debt collector, where the debtor argued the law firm a failed to verify the disputed debt, as required by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”).

By failing to properly validate the debt , the Court held that the Firm violated §1692g(b).

The Court granted Summary Judgment to the Debtor.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0153p-06.pdf

 

Carol A. Lawson, Esq., 28870 U.S. Hwy19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761             Phone: (727) 410-2705;   email: calh@gate.net