insideARM FDCPA Caselaw Grid updated through January 30, 2016

Among the many compliance resources insideARM provides to the ARM industry, we maintain an “FDCPA Resources” page on our website. See: here.

Among the important elements of the page is a grid of significant FDCPA cases. The grid is updated on a regular basis. Case information and analysis is provided by Joann Needleman, Clark Hill attorney and leader of the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Regulatory & Compliance Group. Ms. Needleman recently updated the grid with FDCPA cases through January 31, 2016

January FDCPA Cases in the Spotlight

January’s FDCPA-related cases include some positive outcomes and some negative outcomes for the industry. Don’t miss any FDCPA-relevant cases. You can find updated coverage of the most recent, relevant cases at the insideARM FDCPA page, including details on:

Judd v. Credit Control, Mo. District Court

The gist: Missouri court held that subsequent debt collector that was acquired by previous debt collection does not have to send 1692g disclosure.

Todd. V. United States Bank, Pa. District Court

The gist: The court found that the Rocker-Feldman doctrine applies and challenges to costs, fees and interest on a default judgment and writ of execution should have been challenged in state court. Editor’s Note: The Rocker-Feldman doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts—i.e., federal courts other than the Supreme Court—should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief.

Halberstam V. Global Credit & Collection Corp., N.Y. District Court

The gist: Telephone call to debtor answered by a third party, where name and number was left (but no ID that debt collector), was deemed a communication under the FDCPA because it induced consumer to contact debt collector. Summary judgment was granted in the consumer’s favor.