Tenth Circuit: Lupia v. Medicredit

 Although insufficient harm under common law, the improper phone call from a debt collection agency was of the same kind of harm recognized at common law as intrusion upon seclusion, and Congress addressed this type of harm in the creation of the statute.

Summary judgment for the nonmovant wasn't on novel grounds of which the movant had insufficient notice; the nonmovant is entitled to point out that the motion for summary jusgment is unsupported by the evidence. 

Bona fide error defense unavailable as a matter of law, since no reasonable jury could find that the policies were designed to avoid the making of unauthorized calls.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110562706.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Carl Ward v. Nat'l Patient Account Servs

 

Plaintiff does not have standing under the statute to challenge the lack of sufficient identification of the debt collector, which resulted in the sending of correspondence to the wrong company, since the error does not bear a close relationship to traditional harms, and confusion is insufficient concrete injury.

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0182p-06.pdf

Third Circuit: Candace Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix

 

Since the debt collection letter said that calling the company would cause collection efforts to stop, and not that it would legally compel the collection efforts to stop, under the least sophisticated debtor standard, the letter was not misleading.

Proximity to the legally required information about how to question the claim by mail would not cause undue confusion about which mechanism to use to preserve their rights against the claim.

Candace Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix

Third Circuit: Terry Klotz v. Celentano Stadtmauer and Wale

 

Federal equal credit law's prohibition on discrimination according to marital status  doesn't preempt the state's common law doctrine of necessities, which holds a medical bill to be valid against a spouse; the medical debt is an incidental credit, distant from the traditional credit-provision intent of the law.

Spouse's action against the medical entity for not fulfilling the common law requirement of demand doesn't state a claim, even in the absence of the facility's having made a demand on the estate of the patient, since public records indicate the lack of an estate.

Court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend, since there was no showing of claims falling outside the entitlement under the doctrine of necessities.

Terry Klotz v. Celentano Stadtmauer and Wale

Seventh Circuit: Zurich American Insurance Com v. Ocwen Financial Corporation

 

At the pleadings stage, insurer did not have the duty to defend, since the natural reading of the specific conduct in the pleadings established that the complained-of conduct violated laws that were within the explicit policy exclusions, and allegations that might encompass conduct outside the exceptions were, under the state's laws, legal labels that were meaningless until defined by the facts at trial.

Zurich American Insurance Com v.  Ocwen Financial Corporation

Seventh Circuit: Sonja Pennell v. Global Trust Management, LLC

 

Stress and confusion caused by the receipt of dunning letter is insufficient Article III injury for standing to sue under the debt collection statute.

Sonja Pennell v. Global Trust Management, LLC

Ninth Circuit: Michael Kaiser v. Cascade Capital

 

Even if made in a good faith belief in the validity of the claim, lawsuits and communications made to collect time-barred debts (and that do not acknowledge the lapsed time limit) are both unfair and misleading, and incur strict liability under the federal debt collection law.  A mistake about the state law statute of limitations underlying the claim is a mistake of fact that might qualify as an exculpatory bona fide error under the federal law.

Michael Kaiser v. Cascade Capital

Eighth Circuit: Nicole Smith v. Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd

 

Requests for expenses in the current litigation did not amount to a false statement of monies owed under the federal debt collection act.

Lawsuit that didn't meet the evidentiary burden for establishing the assignment of claims didn't offend the federal debt collection act.

Nicole Smith  v.  Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd

(8th continues its run on "Cleaned Up," with five uses in 12 pages.)

Third Circuit: Robert Schultz, Jr. v. Midland Credit Management

FDCPA Act boilerplate debt collector's letter threatening reporting to the IRS when the matter in question was less than the amount the IRS required be reported states a claim, and may later prevail,  as it only takes one juror.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172244p.pdf

Third Circuit: Elaine Levins v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery

A debt collector's phone message left under a DBA states a claim for a violation of the "true name" provision of the statute, but importing the "true name" requirement into other prohibited deceptive practices would make the provision superfluous.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173330p.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Iowna Portalatin v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker

Comprehensive settlement agreement reached during trial released claim for statutory damages and fees.

Penalties under the statute are not per deft.


http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-13/C:17-3335:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2201522:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Andrew Schlaf v. Safeguard Property, LLC

A management company that leaves notices on the doors of a residence when mortgage payments fall behind is not an indirect debt collector for the purposes of the statute.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-10/C:17-2811:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2200827:S:0

Third Circuit: Thomas St. Pierre v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau

Disclosure of account information through mailing envelope window is a sufficiently concrete and particular intangible harm for standing.

Although incurring highway tolls was a consensual transaction, the primary purpose was not personal or household benefit, as the benefit provided by tolls is the maintenance of the roads.  The debt therefore does not qualify under the Act.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171731p.pdf

Third Circuit: James Tepper v. Amos Financial LLC

A debt collector is covered by the Act if their principal purpose is the collection of the debt; the fact that they are also the creditor does not preclude a finding that debt collection is the primary purpose of the organization.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172851p.pdf

Second Circuit: Huebner, et al. v. Midland Credit Mgmt., et al.

So long as the questions are not misleading or abusive, the Act permits a spoken inquiry as to the reason for disputing a debt.

Given the specificity of the first claim in the trial management phase, court did not abuse discretion for imposing procedural sanctions when it proved false.

No abuse of discretion in, prior to imposing sanction, not allowing amendment of filing that violated confidentiality order.

Sanctions for vexatious litigation did not abuse discretion; ordering payment of opponent's fees for motion that was only partially granted was within the court's discretion.

Sanctions under the Act and the court's inherent authority were appropriate.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2ecf3400-1de9-443e-a981-66684e3b642f/1/doc/16-2363_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2ecf3400-1de9-443e-a981-66684e3b642f/1/hilite/

Eighth Circuit: David Coyne v. Messerli & Kramer P.A.

An unsophisticated party states a claim under the Act by alleging that a letter sent to collect a debt, on its face, includes amounts that are not authorized by state law.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172826P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Domick Nelson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc

FDCPA, Bankruptcy, Circuit Split


FDCPA does not allow for a claim against a time-barred debt filed as a claim against a bankruptcy estate.

Circuit split flagged.



Domick Nelson  v.  Midland Credit Management, Inc

DC Circuit: USA v. TDC Management Corporation

Corporations, FDCPA


Husband and wife's holding of stock in an S-corporation as tenants by the entirety doesn't support an FDCPA action against the assets of the corporation. 

Remanded to consider whether to pierce the veil.


USA v. TDC Management Corporation

Second Circuit: Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Bankruptcy/FDCPA

As the remedies of the FDCPA do not explicitly conflict with the discharge injunction from bankruptcy proceedings, the Bankruptcy act does not partially repeal the FDCPA with reference to post-discharge suits; the ordinary statutory remedies are available.

Piecemeal litigation fears do not justify the barring of claims under the FDCPA.


http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/2/doc/15-527_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/2/hilite/

Sixth Circuit: Brian Bauman v. Bank of America

FDCPA.

A counterclaim for the debt is not a compulsory counterclaim in a FDCPA action based on a lender's previous illegal conduct in foreclosure actions.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0299p-06.pdf