How To Stop Debt Collectors from Calling.

Many consumers are behind in paying their bills?  And, many consumers are receiving calls from debt collectors.  Fortunately, the law says how and when they can do that.  For example, they can’t call before 8 a.m., after 9 p.m., or while you’re at work if the collector knows that your employer doesn’t approve of the calls.  Debt Collectors may not harass you or lie when they try to collect a debt.  And, if you ask them in writing to stop calling, they have to stop.

Debt Collectors must send you a written “validation notice” telling you how much money you owe within five days after they first contact you.  The notice must include the name of the creditor to whom you owe the money.

If you don’t want the collector to contact you again, ask for the collector’s mailing address and tell them – in writing – to stop contacting you.  Keep a copy of your letter for your files.  Send the original by certified mail, and pay for a “return receipt” so you’ll be able to document what the collector received.  Once the collector gets your letter, they are not allowed to contact you again.  Sending a letter to a debt collector you owe money to doesn’t get rid of the debt, but it should stop the contact.  The creditor or the debt collector still can sue you to collect the debt.

If this doesn’t work, contact me at 888-877-5103 or visit our website at www.ConsumerRightsOrlando.com.

Consumers file FDCPA Class Action Against Weinstein, Pinson & Riley

Fifteen consumers filed a Class Action Lawsuit against Weinstein, Pinson & Riley in United States District Court in Orlando, Florida, alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Class Action Complaint arises out of a number of student loan lawsuits filed by Weinstein, Pinson & Riley on behalf of National Collegiate Student Loan Trust.    The Consumers are alleging that Weinstein, Pinson & Riley made misleading and deceptive statements in connection with its efforts to collect on student loans.
Ferrell, et al v Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., Case No. 6:13-cv-1965-Orl-36DAB.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article are the plaintiff’s version of the facts and must be proven with competent evidence. Moreover, these allegations may be denied or disproven by the defendants.]

Validation Notice Attached to Foreclosure Action Results in FDCPA Class Action

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) mandates that as part of noticing a debt, a debt collector must send the consumer a written notice containing -- along with other information – “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.”   This requirement is sometimes referred to as the “Debt Validation Notice.”  In addition, the Act prohibits a “debt collector” from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”
Surprisingly, many well established law firms have a fundamental misunderstanding of the application of this statutory requirement.   A random survey of foreclosure actions filed throughout the State of Florida would reveal that a 1692(g) Validation Notice is routinely attached to mortgage foreclosure complaints.  However, a “pleading,” such as a complaint in a lawsuit, can never be an “initial communication” that triggers the notice requirement under 1692(g).  Moreover, sending such a notice can be deceptive and misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer.”

A recent case filed in United States District Court in Orlando, Florida, alleges that Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP, acting as counsel for PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed a complaint in Seminole County, Florida, to foreclose on Linda Karp’s mortgage and to enforce a promissory note.   Attached to the state court complaint and summons was a document entitled “Notice Required by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.”  The Notice was presumably served to inform Linda Karp of her rights concerning validation of the debt and provide her with 30 days to request validation of the debt.   The summons issued by the court along with the foreclosure complaint informed Karp that she had 20 days to file a response with the court.   Karp sued Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP under the FDCPA alleging that the firm violated the Act because the Notice attached to the state court Complaint was deceptive and misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer.”  The lawsuit alleges that the  “least sophisticated consumer” could be deceived or confused when the summons sets out a 20-day deadline to respond to the lawsuit and the attached notice provides for a 30-day deadline to request validation of the debt.  Karp further alleged that hundreds of other consumers received the identical notice in connection with their mortgage foreclosure lawsuit.
Karp v. Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP, Case Number: 6-14-Civ-Orl-000046-28TB

Validation Notice Attached to Complaint Results in FDCPA Lawsuit

An attempted validation notice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692(g) attached to a Complaint in a lawsuit may be considered as deceptive and misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In Battle v. Gladstone Law Group, P.A., law firm, acting as counsel for Bank of America, N.A., filed a complaint in Florida State Court to foreclose on Gina Battle’s mortgage and to enforce a promissory note. Attached to the State Court complaint and summons was a document entitled “Notice Required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.” The Notice was presumably served to inform Gina Battle of her rights concerning validation of the debt and provide her with 30 days to request validation of the debt. The summons issued by the State Court along with the State Court complaint informed Battle that she had 20 days to file a response with the court. Battle sued the law firm, Gladstone Law Group, and attorney Ron Gladstone, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act alleging that they violated the FDCPA because the Notice attached to the state court Complaint was deceptive and misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer.” The federal lawsuit was converted into a Class Action alleging that that the class was so large that joinder of all members of the Class was impractical and that the class was in excess of 100. The District Judge ruled that an FDCPA notice incorporated into a mortgage foreclosure summons and complaint, such as the one used by the Gladstone Law Group, does not necessarily effectively convey notice of the rights to the “least sophisticated consumer.” The Court went on to say that the “least sophisticated consumer” could be deceived or confused when the summons sets out a 20-day deadline to respond to the lawsuit and the attached notice provides for a 30-day deadline to request validation of the debt.
Battle v. Gladstone Law Group, P.A., Case Number: 12-14458-Civ-Martinez-Lynch.

"Least Sophisticated Consumer" Standard Under the FDCPA

The Eleventh Circuit and the majority of federal circuit courts have adopted the “least-sophisticated consumer” standard in analyzing claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).   The least-sophisticated consumer standard is consistent with FDCPA’s goal of expanding the consumer protections originally provided by the Federal Trade Commission Act.   The purpose of the least-sophisticated-consumer standard, here as in other areas of consumer law, is to ensure that the FDCPA protects the gullible as well as the shrewd.   No requirement of proof of actual deception of the consumer is necessary.
Courts apply this objective standard in order to implement the FDCPA’s dual purpose: to protect consumers against deceptive debt collection practices and to protect debt collectors from unreasonable constructions of their communications to consumer.    The least sophisticated consumer will be presumed to possess a rudimentary amount of information about the world and a willingness to read a collection notice with some care.    However the test also has an objective component in that while protecting naive consumers, the standard also prevents liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection communications by preserving a quotient of reasonableness.

Northstar Mortage pursues collection after bankruptcy discharge

On March 18, 2013, a lawsuit was filed by James Dooley under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Orlando, Florida, alleging that Dooley had a mortgage with Bank of America which eventually went into default. In August of 2011, Mr. Dooley filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge in January of 2012. The mortgage with Bank of America was listed on the bankruptcy schedules. Notwithstanding the discharge of the note, Nationstar Mortgage continued collection activities against Mr. Dooley attempting to collect the discharged debt.

In an unrelated case, another lawsuit was filed in April of 2013 also under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Orlando, Florida, alleges that consumers took out a mortgage with MorEquity. In August of 2010, consumers filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge in November of 2010. The mortgage with MorEquity was listed on the bankruptcy schedules. Notwithstanding the discharge of the note, Nationstar Mortgage continued aggressive collection activities against the consumers including collection calls and collection letters attempting to collect the discharged debt.

Both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act make it unlawful for any person, in attempting to collect a debt, to: "Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist."

Plaintiffs in both lawsuits are seeking statutory and emotional damages against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and have demanded a trial by jury.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article the plaintiff’s version of the facts and must be proven with competent evidence. Moreover, these allegations may be denied or disproven by the defendants.]

Ocwen Loan, Udren Law Offices, sue consumer after Bankruptcy Discharge

A lawsuit filed in April of 2013 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Orlando, Florida, Case No. 6:13-cv-625-Orl-cv-22DAB, alleges that in November of 2006, the consumer took out a mortgage with the predecessor in title of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. In November of 2009, consumer filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge in April of 2010. The mortgage with Ocwen was listed on the bankruptcy schedules. Notwithstanding the discharge of the note, on March 13, 2013, Ocwen and Udren Law Offices sued the consumer for foreclosure in Osceola County, Florida, on the discharged note and mortgage.

Correspondence indicates that Ocwen Loan Servicing was fully aware of plaintiff's bankruptcy for over one year prior the the filing of the foreclosure action. After the federal lawsuit was filed, Udren Law Offices filed papers in the foreclosure proceedings dropping all claims againt the consumer seekign persoanl liability.

Both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act make it unlawful for any person, in attempting to collect a debt, to: "Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist."

The consumer is being represented by N. James Turner of Orlando, FL.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article the plaintiff’s version of the facts and must be proven with competent evidence. Moreover, these allegations may be denied or disproven by the defendants.]

Midland Funding, Pollack & Rosen, sue wrong person on alleged debt

A lawsuit filed in April of 2013 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Orlando, Florida, alleges that Midland Funding, LLC and Pollack & Rosen, P.A. sued the wrong person in county court in Orlando. To make matters worse, Midland Funding, LLC, through its managing attorney, Amanda Duffy, filed another case against the same wrong person on the date that the federal case was filed.

The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act makes it unlawful for any person, in attempting to collect a debt, to: "Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist."

Plaintiff is seeking statutory and emotional damages against Midland Funding, LLC and Pollack & Rosen, P.A. and has demanded a trial by jury.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article the plaintiff’s version of the facts and must be proven with competent evidence. Moreover, these allegations may be denied or disproven by the defendants.]

Lawsuit: Bank of America/Kass Shuler, Continue Pursuing Foreclosure/Auction After Modification

A lawsuit filed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in Unites States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando, alleges that Bank of America and its law firm, Kass Shuler, P.A., continued to prosecute a mortgage foreclosure action up to obtaining a final judgment setting a public sale date, despite the fact that the homeowners had obtained a permanent modification from Bank of America and were current on their mortgage payments.

The facts of the case begin with Bank of America, through its successors in interest, extending credit to the Plaintiffs through a first mortgage on their primary residence, Loan No. 164910692.

At some point prior to December of 2012, the mortgage went into default and on November 22, 2011, Bank of America , through its attorneys Kass Shuler, P.A., filed a mortgage foreclosure action against the Plaintiffs in Circuit Court, Orange County, Florida, alleging, among other things, that Plaintiffs were in default on their mortgage.

After November of 2011, Plaintiffs made application to Bank of America, for a modification of their existing first mortgage so that they would be better able to satisfy their financial commitments to Bank of Americasaid Defendant, and, most important, keep their home.

Plaintiffs provided Bank of America with all of the documents and other information that they required in order to obtain the loan modification.

Plaintiffs applied for the loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) which, according to Bank of America’s website: “is one of the federal government’s Making Home Affordable programs. The government’s goal for modifying your loan is to help you get a more affordable and sustainable monthly mortgage payment.”

In processing the application for loan modification, Bank of America, represented to the Plaintiffs that if they successfully made all of their Trial Period Plan payments, they would receive a permanent Modification Agreement explaining the changes to their loan terms and that once this document was been signed, notarized and returned to Bank of America, the modification would become permanent.

On December 18, 2012, Bank of America approved the Plaintiffs’ loan modification request and, according to documents, the modification would become permanent upon the Plaintiffs signing and returning the enclosed documents.

Plaintiffs anxiously and gratefully accepted the loan modification, executed a Loan Modification Agreement and returned it to Bank of America.

In full compliance with the Loan Modification Agreement, Plaintiffs continued to timely pay to Bank of America, each and every monthly mortgage payment required under their modified mortgage.

According to the lawsuit, Kass Shuler, P.A. submitted documents to the Circuit Court in the mortgage foreclosure action, contending that the Plaintiffs were in default on their first mortgage with Bank of America when, in fact, the Plaintiffs were current with respect to their obligations with Bank of America.

On March 6, 2013, Plaintiffs received a conformed copy of a Final Judgment for Plaintiff ordering that unless they paid a total of $353,985.67 to Bank of America, that their home would be sold at a public sale to the highest bidder on June 4, 2013 at 11:00 am.

The lawsuit further alleges that the Final Judgment for Plaintiff was drafted and prepared by Kass Shuler, P.A. and all of the information contained therein was supplied and furnished by Kass Shuler, P.A.

The fact and content of the Final Judgment was a complete shock to Plaintiffs because they had faithfully made all of their payments to Bank of America under the terms of the modified mortgage.

The lawsuit also alleges that Kass Shuler, P.A. promoted and reinforced its public image through its website, marketing materials, and other forms of advertising, for the purpose of creating the impression that it possessed special expertise in the areas of foreclosure litigation and problem resolution. What follows is a direct quote from the Kass Shuler, P.A. website:

"Nationally recognized for its experience and expertise in representing creditors throughout the state of Florida, our Collections department comprises highly qualified attorneys, paralegals, investigators and collectors specializing in both commercial and retail matters. Our exceptional online database system allows clients to easily access case status, promoting optimum communication and process efficiency."

Plaintiffs have requested statutory damages, declaratory relief and emotional damages and have demanded a trial by jury.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article the plaintiff’s version of the facts and must be proven with competent evidence. Moreover, these allegations may be denied or disproven by the defendants.]

“Wrong Number” Calls or Voicemails from Debt Collectors

Have you ever received calls from debt collectors for a person completely unknown to you? These “wrong number” calls are usually the result of collection calls being made to the person who owned the telephone number immediately prior to you. What do you do about these wrong number calls? My advice is to tell the debt collector that you are not the person that she/he is trying to contact and ask them to stop calling. However, this common sense approach often does not work because the debt collector does not believe the person that she/he spoke with. The collecting caller may believe that the person called is actually the true debtor and is trying to avoid the call by saying that it was a “wrong number.” If the debt collector keeps calling after being told that they have the wrong number, in this author’s opinion, the continued calls constitute harassment under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In addition, the “wrong number” calls could be in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The TCPA prohibits calls using a pre-recorded or artificial voice to deliver a message to a consumer unless there is a previous business relationship or consent for the call by the consumer. With most calls made by the debt industry to a consumer, the previous business relationship between the creditor and the consumer is sufficient to allow the debt collector to utilize a pre-recorded message. However, with wrong number collection calls, such a previous business relationship is lacking. Bringing suit under the TCPA premised on wrong number debt collection calls can result in substantial claimed damages. The TCPA provides for a statutory penalty of $500.00 per call and that amount increases to $1500.00 per intentional violation.

For more information, visit us at Stop Debtor Harassment or Consumer Rights Orlando.

Consumer Protection from Unwanted Cellphone Calls

Recent headlines have drawn attention to a prevalent consumer complaint - unwanted cell phone calls. A class action lawsuit against Papa John’s involves franchises that sent customers a total of 500,000 unwanted text messages in early 2010 offering deals for pizza. Some of these texts were sent during the middle of the night. The lawsuit is based upon the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

The TCPA was enacted into law to “protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers” by placing certain restrictions on the use of unsolicited, automated phone calls made by telemarketers who were “blasting” out advertising by the use of both “facsimile machines and automatic dialers. An essential requirement of a TCPA claim is that the phone call be sent to a cell phone by use of auto dialing technology which either (1) utilizes a so-called “random or sequential number generator” or (2) automatically leaves a prerecorded, as opposed to a live, message.

In the context of debt collection practices, creditors have contacted consumers by cell phones on a regular basis. If a debt collector is found to have violated the TCPA, the consumer is entitled to recover statutory damages of $500 per call, and up to $1500 per call if the violation is willful, without any cap on damages. Claims under the TCPA by consumers against debt collectors are frequently joined with actions brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

For more information, visit us at Consumer Rights Orlando.

Consumer Protection from Unwanted Cellphone Calls

Recent headlines have drawn attention to a prevalent consumer complaint - unwanted cell phone calls. A class action lawsuit against Papa John’s involves franchises that sent customers a total of 500,000 unwanted text messages in early 2010 offering deals for pizza. Some of these texts were sent during the middle of the night. The lawsuit is based upon the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

The TCPA was enacted into law to “protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers” by placing certain restrictions on the use of unsolicited, automated phone calls made by telemarketers who were “blasting” out advertising by the use of both “facsimile machines and automatic dialers. An essential requirement of a TCPA claim is that the phone call be sent to a cell phone by use of auto dialing technology which either (1) utilizes a so-called “random or sequential number generator” or (2) automatically leaves a prerecorded, as opposed to a live, message.

In the context of debt collection practices, creditors have contacted consumers by cell phones on a regular basis. If a debt collector is found to have violated the TCPA, the consumer is entitled to recover statutory damages of $500 per call, and up to $1500 per call if the violation is willful, without any cap on damages. Claims under the TCPA by consumers against debt collectors are frequently joined with actions brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

For more information, visit us at Consumer Rights Orlando.

What is “false, misleading and deceptive under the Fair Collection Practices Act?

The Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) was enacted to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices.”   Among the abusive tactics that the FDCPA sought to eliminate was the proscription of “false, misleading and deceptive” communications from debt collectors to consumers.

Consumer, Paula Maple, took out a loan from Midland Funding, LLC successor in interest to Bank of America, N.A., for personal, family, or household services.  Sometime thereafter the debt was transferred to the law firm of Sprechman & Associates, P.A. for collection.

On March 6, 2012, Sprechman & Associates, P.A. sent a letter to Paula Maple which stated in part:

“If your client fails to make payment or fails to make appropriate arrangements they will leave us with no choice but to subject all of their assets to actions to collect this Judgment.”

Paula Maple filed a lawsuit in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, against Sprechman & Associates, P.A. alleging, among other things, that the statement in the letter were false given the numerous exemptions to executions on judgments.

Paula Maple also alleged in her lawsuit that the letter sent to her by Sprechman & Associates, P.A. violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.

Whether a collection letter or other communication is false, deceptive, or misleading under the FDCPA is determined from the perspective of the objective least sophisticated consumer.  Under this standard, collection notices can be deceptive if they are open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.   Debt collectors that violate the FDCPA are strictly liable, meaning that a consumer need not show intentional conduct by the debt collector to be entitled to damages.

For more information about debt collection harassment, or Sprechman & Associates, P.A., visit us at http://www.ConsumerRightsOrlando.com.http://www.ConsumerRightsOrlando.com

Plaintiff accused by Court of deliberately defaulting on debts to create FDCPA claims

The Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA), enacted in 1977, aimed to "eliminate abusive debt collection practices.” Among many other reforms, the FDCPA prohibits harassing or oppressive conduct on the part of debt collectors, and it requires debt collectors to provide notice to debtors of their right to require verification of a debt. Both the text of the FDCPA and its legislative history emphasize the intent of Congress to address the previously common and severe problem of abusive debt collection practices and to protect unsophisticated consumers from unscrupulous debt collection tactics. The Act, as a U.S. District court recently stated, was not intended to enable plaintiffs to bring serial lawsuits against different debt collector defendants alleging various and often insignificant deviations from the Act’s provisions.

In Ehrich v. Credit Prot. Ass’n, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134142 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2012), accused the plaintiff in that case of abusing the FDCPA by, among other things, filing a total of nine complaints, including the present case, over the past seven years. The court stated that the record suggests that the plaintiff may be deliberately defaulting on his debts in order to provoke collection letters which are then combed by his lawyer for technical violations of the FDCPA.

The facts of this unique case are that Ehrich filed a complaint against Credit Protection Association, L.P., alleging violations of the FDCPA. Ehrich alleged that CPA sent him a collection note seeking to recover a debt owed to Time Warner Cable Company. Ehrich did not dispute the validity of the debt CPA sought to collect, nor did he claim that the primary text of the letter violates the FDCPA. Rather, Ehrich based his claim on two Spanish sentences at the top and bottom of the letter.

Printed at the top of the letter is the phrase “aviso importante de cobro,” which Ehrich, relying on a Google translation, translated as “important collection notice.” At the bottom of the collection notice were three Spanish phrases: “Opciones de pago,” “Llame” followed by a phone number, and “Envíe MoneyGram,” which Ehrich translated as “Payment options,” “Call" and “Send MoneyGram.” Ehrich, who does not speak Spanish, claimed that the notice’s inclusion of these Spanish phrases without a Spanish translation of the FDCPA-mandated disclosures and notices provided in English could mislead Spanish-speaking consumers and cause them to inadvertently waive their rights under the FDCPA.

CPA moved for summary judgment which was granted by the court based on lack of standing. The basis for the Court’s ruling was that the collection notice contained all disclosures required by the FDCPA and that Ehrich fully understood it. Therefore, he suffered no injury sufficient to support standing.

Offer of Judgment Halts FDCPA Lawsuit

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 provides that, at least fourteen days before trial, a defending party may serve a plaintiff with an offer to allow a judgment on specified terms. Several recent district court opinions have rules that an offer of judgment providing the plaintiff with the maximum allowable relief will moot the plaintiff’s FDCPA claim. Moten v. Broward Cnty., No. 10-62398-CIV, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19332, 2012 WL 526790, at 2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2012); see also Mackenzie v. Kindred Hosp. E., LLC, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1218-19 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (dismissing FLSA claim as moot after plaintiff rejected Rule 68 offer where offer exceeded amount plaintiff could have received at trial).

In Young v. AmeriFinancial Solutions, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125661 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2012), plaintiff filed an action against defendant under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which provides that damages in an action brought by an individual shall not exceed $1,000.00. Defendant served an Offer of Judgment proposing to have judgment entered in the about of $1,001, plus attorney's fees incurred prior to the date of the offer. The Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the offer of judgment would provide plaintiff with the maximum allowable relief on her claims. Therefore, the court concluded, that the action was moot and the Court would no longer have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.

For more information about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ot, its state law counterpart, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, visit us at:

• Stop Collection Harassment;
or
• Consumer Rights Orlando

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibited debt collection practices. A debt collector who “fails to comply with any [FDCPA] provision . . . with respect to any person is liable to such person” for “actual damage[s],” costs, “a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court,” and statutory “additional damages.” § 1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), § 41 et seq., which is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). See § 1692l. A debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subject to civil penalties enforced by the FTC. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), (C). A debt collector is not liable in any action brought under the FDCPA, however, if it “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” § 1692k(c).