Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Here’s a rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases we’ve covered.
06/28/2024 3:20 P.M.
2.5 minute read
Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Here are the cases covered June 25-28:
June 25:
Ross v. Siegert: Court Finds Collection Letters Were Not Harassing, Oppressive, Or Abusive
A Missouri federal district court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the letters they received were harassing, oppressive, or abusive because the “run-of-the-mill” letters could simply not support a claim under Section 1692d for the FDCPA.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Smitherman v. Midland Credit Management: Letters in Response to Consumer’s Dispute and Cease Communication Request Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A consumer alleged that a debt collector violated the FDCPA when it mailed her letters regarding her alleged debt. The debt collector maintained these letters did not violate the FDCPA and that the consumer lacked standing to bring the claim.
Continue reading the case summary here.
June 26:
Kirkland v. I.C. Systems: Court Finds Bona Fide Error Defense is an Issue for a Jury to Decide
A consumer claimed a debt buyer violated the FDCPA by failing to report to CRAs that she disputed a debt the debt collector was attempting to collect.
Continue reading the summary here.
Asmad-Escobar v. Phoenix Financial Services: New Jersey Superior Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s FDCPA Letter Vendor Claim
The court ultimately found that nothing about the defendant’s conduct was abusive, deceptive or unfair under the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 27:
Warren v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union: Court Finds No Statutory or Common Law Requirement That Lenders Must Respond to Negotiations from Credit Counseling Agencies
A Nevada federal district court dismissed a consumer’s complaint, finding there is no statutory or common law requirement that lenders respond to negotiations from credit counseling agencies.
Continue reading the summary here.
Tschoe v. Monarch Recovery: Case Dismissed in Federal Court for Lack of Standing and Remanded to State Court
Two consumers each sued a debt collector in state court in separate actions, claiming that the collection letter they received violated the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 28:
Davis v. KeyBank: Court Finds Plaintiff Cannot Pursue an FCRA Claim Based on a Violation of a Bankruptcy Discharge Order
Applying 9th Circuit precedent, a Nevada district court held that there is no private right of action under Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code and that a plaintiff cannot pursue an FCRA claim based on a violation of the discharge order.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ostojich v. Specialized Loan Servicing: Court Finds Consumer Disputed Her Debt Under the FDCPA
Two consumers alleged that a debt collector submitted false information about their home mortgage loan to CRAs in violation of the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more Daily Decision recaps and compliance resources.
If you’ve recently obtained a judicial opinion that might benefit other ACA members, email it to us: [email protected].
- Join the discussion on legal and compliance topics with your fellow members on the Members Attorney Program community on The Hub. Simply log on to The Hub and select Members Attorney Program under the Communities menu.
- ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.