4th Circuit Court of Appeals - Another Win for Consumers

[TomnTex]

This may be interesting to read. Start at about page 13 and read on from there to get the meat of it.  http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/122357.P.pdf

 

 

 

Used Chrome, think I got it now.

[willingtocope]

If you're using IE 11, the cut and paste functions don't work.  IP Board software uses a javascript addon the Microsoft chose to new-and-improve out of IE.

[BeachesandBeer]

Link doesn't work for me but if I go here where is it?

 

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/

[TomnTex]

Thanks guys, yes, I just upgraded to IE 11. Well, at least I now know why. thanks Willing.

[debtzapper]

I noticed Suzanne Begnoche of North Carolina was the attorney for Russell, the winning plaintiff.  She is an excellent consumer lawyer with an online guide to fighting debt collection cases in NC

[TomnTex]

Well, what is it Lad? You didn't give us a link......lol

[debtzapper]

Well, what is it Lad? You didn't give us a link......lol

 

 

http://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/Consumer%20Debt%20Collection%20Defense%20Basics.pdf

 

Her website:

 

 

http://www.begnochelaw.com/

[BV80]

@TomnTex

 

I don't know what you mean by "oral revocation".

[TomnTex]

As I understand it, you can tell the JDB/CA to stop calling you on the phone instead of having to write them for it to be held to FDCPA standards. In the 4th Circuit.

[BV80]

@TomnTex

 

I didn't read where the court made that ruling.   The collection agency claimed that a consumer cannot file suit for a violation of the FDCPA unless they first dispute the debt.  The court ruled that if a debt collector violates the ACT, it's not necessary to first dispute the debt before filing suit.  I don't know where the collection agency got the idea that you have to dispute first.  They were just trying to come up with a defense.

[BeachesandBeer]

@TomnTex

 

  I don't know where the collection agency got the idea that you have to dispute first.  They were just trying to come up with a defense.

 

They made the presumption, in a court of law, before a judge, that when a person chooses to not ask for validation it means they are not disputing it and they give up any and all future rights to dispute.

Big mistake.......

[TomnTex]

The way I read this and I may be wrong BV is:

 

The woman, Russell had no reason to challenge the validity of the debt within the first thirty days of receiving the initial collection letter because the debt was actually valid. Instead, she paid the bill and notified Absolute Collection of her payment. It would be inconsistent with the FDCPA’s remedial scheme to hold that a plaintiff’s ability to state a claim under the FDCPA is extinguished because the plaintiff failed to dispute the validity of the debt when he or she had no reason to seek validation in the first place.

 

Besides, requiring a debtor to dispute their debts as a condition to filing suit would produce consequences squarely at odds with the FDCPA’s essential purpose of preventing “abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a).

 

Id. § 1692k (“[A]ny debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of th[e] [FDCPA] with respect to any person is liable to such person . . . .”).

 

Also, contrary to Absolute Collection’s protestations, construing the FDCPA as permitting a consumer to bring a civil action without first, disputing the debt would not drain § 1692g of meaning. The debt validation provisions of § 1692g still serve the important purpose of ensuring that consumers receive notice of their rights of verification and to dispute the debt. See Miller v. Payco-Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 943 F.2d 482, 484 (4th Cir. 1991). Further, many debtors will prefer to avail themselves of the prompt and inexpensive validation procedures as an alternative to the costly and time-consuming method of filing a claim in federal court. Thus, allowing debtors to seek relief for violations of § 1692e without disputing their debts does not render the statute’s validation procedures superfluous.

 

We therefore hold that a debtor is not required to dispute his or her debt pursuant to § 1692g as a condition to filing suit under § 1692e

[BV80]

@TomnTex

 

The consumer did not tell them to stop calling.  She simply told them that she had already paid the debt in full.  She sued because they falsely reported the status of the debt and also threatened to report it as past due.  The issue of an oral demand to a debt collector to stop calling was not raised by the consumer or addressed by the court.

[TomnTex]

  Guess I goofed on that BV, thought they were saying that you could use an oral statement instead of a written one to stop their calling....... Just pull this thread if it's not going to help like I thought it was.

[BV80]

@TomnTex

 

Maybe you could just change the title.  I think the ruling is an important one.  Who knows how many debt collectors have made the same claim as Absolute Collections?   Some consumers might need to know that they don't have to dispute a debt to sue for an FDCPA violation.  If a debt collector tells them otherwise, consumers can laugh at the debt collector while filing a lawsuit.

[TomnTex]

Thanks BV, could you change it to something that you think might work? Since I upgraded to IE 11 I've been having a few problems.

[debtzapper]

You can read all the pleadings in the case here:

 

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/mqkdw330/north-carolina-middle-district-court/russell-v-absolute-collection-services-inc-et-al/