vap0rtranz Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 I was casually reading some statutes to help with my debt problems and bumped into a shocking case where the consumer lost because of a lawyer loophole. A federal judge ruled just last year against a guy who the CA's were going after -- despite some nice, prefacing words in defense of consumers -- because "all but one of the district courts that have addressed this issue [of debtor-attorney communication with collectors] in readily available opinions have come to the same conclusion, holding that communications between a debt collector and the debtor’s attorney are not actionable under the FDCPA." (see http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/opinions/AOF150O1.pdf for this judge's ruling)I was floored! So it's best, at least until someone appeals this general concensus of 'all but one district court ruling', that consumers not hire lawyers if we're considering a suit against a CA?! It sounds like if we do, then we forfeit some consumer protection via some lawyer loophole ...
Recovering Attorney Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 Read the case. The judge was slapping Captain's bankruptcy lawyer's hands for being too cute. A lawyer, working for a client, cannot be said to be the least sophisticated consumer. Words said to a lawyer are not actionable by the client ( who never heard them). Bad cases make bad law, but I do not think there is anything surprising here. Nor do I think it means you shouldn't engage a lawyer.
nascar Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 What difference would it make what the CA said to the attorney. If you retain an attorney due to debt collector abuse, the damage has already been done. You still have a cause of action.
IHateCAs Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 What difference would it make what the CA said to the attorney. If you retain an attorney due to debt collector abuse, the damage has already been done. You still have a cause of action.Exactly.There is also a case that held that mail addressed to the consumer c/o of the attorney is actionable by the consumer.
Optimus_SubPrime Posted March 23, 2007 Report Posted March 23, 2007 So it's best... that consumers not hire lawyers if we're considering a suit against a CA?! It sounds like if we do, then we forfeit some consumer protection via some lawyer loophole ...Very interesting. Thanks for linking this.It's pathetic to think that retaining a lawyer means the consumer relinquishes the protection of the FDCPA. The intent of the FDCPA is to control the bad behavior of debt collectors. If their bad behavior is no longer actionable when the consumer has a lawyer, then the debt collectors have been freed to behave as badly they wish. They can mischaracterize the amount or character or legal status of the debt, or attempt to add charges they are not entitled to, without consequence. Maybe your lawyer will catch them at it, maybe he won't. But if he does, there's no penalty... so why not try?
vap0rtranz Posted March 23, 2007 Author Report Posted March 23, 2007 I did read the case. (That's abit condescending.) My impression was that Captain didn't have much of an argument anyways as the opinion easily struck down I, II and III; my concern, however, was the judge's wording about how the law protects consumers differently when they hire lawyers ...
nascar Posted March 23, 2007 Report Posted March 23, 2007 judge's wording about how the law protects consumers differently when they hire lawyers ...You're reading someting into the case that's not there. This is one of those cases that should never have been filed in the first place.
Recommended Posts