Decisions: Debt Collection Abuse
The following are some of the FDCPA cases brought by O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, which resulted in published decisions by the court.
[Be sure to visit our Settlements page as well.]
U.S. Court of Appeals
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a consumer’s dispute of a debt need not be in writing. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a class action could be certified where each individual class member would receive approximately $60. Carroll v. United Compucred Collections, Inc., 399 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2005).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collect company’s employee could be held in contempt of court although he was not named as an individual defendant in the FDCPA litigation. Irwin v. Mascott, 370 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2004).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Western Union was a debt collector within the FDCPA when it sent notice of a telegram for personal delivery and captured the consumer’s telephone number when he or she called for the telegram. Western Union then turned the phone number over to a collection agency. Romine v. Diversified Collection Services, Inc., 155 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1998).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a condominium assessment fee was a debt covered by the FDCPA. Ladick v. Van Gement, 146 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. den. 119 S.Ct. 511 (1998).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that consumers who were awarded $50 each for a debt collector’s violation of the FDCPA were entitled to an award of attorneys fees. Zagorski v. Midwest Billing Services, Inc., 128 F.3d 1164 (7th Cir. 1997);
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a collection attorney’s statement that suit would be filed in seven days if the debt were not paid conflicted with the validation notice and violated the FDCPA. Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997).
Class Actions Certified
Class actions were certified in these FDCPA cases.
Schwarm v. Craighead, 233 F.R.D. 655 (E.D.Cal. 2006);
Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC, 233 F.R.D. 577 (S.D.Cal. 2006);
Gacy v. Gammage & Burnham, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38081 (D.Ariz., Dec. 15, 2005);
Abels v. JBC Legal Group, P.C., 227 F.R.D 541 (N.D.Cal. 2005);
Martsolf v. JBC Legal Group, P.C., 2005 WL 331544, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1802 (M.D.Pa., Feb. 7, 2005);
Evans v. American Credit Sys., 222 F.R.D. 388 (D.Neb. 2004);
Agan v. Katzman & Korr, P.A., 222 F. R. D. 692 (S.D. Fla. 2004)
Clark v. Bonded Adjustment Co., 204 F.R.D. 662 (E.D.Wash. 2002);
Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 271 (W.D.Mich. 2001);
Fuller v. Becker & Poliakoff, 197 F.R.D. 697 (M.D.Fla. 2000);
Silva v. National Telewire Corp. 2000 D. N. H. 197, 2006 U. S. Dist. Lexis 13986 (D. N. H. 2000
Woodard v.. Online Information Services, 191 F.R.D. 502 (E.D.N.C. 2000);
Talbott v. GC Services, 191 F.R.D. 99 (W.D.Va. 2000);
Swanson v. Mid Am, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 665 (MD, Fla., 1999)
Irwin v. Mascott, 96 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D.Cal. 1999),
Brink v. First Credit Resources, 185 F.R.D. 567 (D.Ariz. 1999);
Ballard v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 186 F. R. D. 589 (E.D. Cal. 1999)
California
The debt collector’s counterclaims to a FDCPA class action were dismissed. Campos v. Western Dental Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33228 (N.D.Cal., Nov. 28, 2005);
Debt collector’s collection of interest in addition to the California dishonored check charge was held to violate the FDCPA. Palmer v. Stassinos, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D.Cal. 2004).
The court entered summary judgment for the consumers and a preliminary injunction enjoining the illegal practices of the debt collector which violated the FDCPA. Irwin v. Mascott, 112 F.Supp.2d 937 (N.D.Cal. 2000),
The Court held that in the absence of statutory authority the collector’s addition of a $25 charge to the dishonored check was invalid. Ballard v. Equifax Check Servs., 158 F.Supp.2d 1163 (E.D.Cal. 2001);
Florida
The Court found that the language in the law firm’s collection letter was misleading to the least sophisticated debtor in violation of the FDCPA. Fuller v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 192 F.Supp.2d 1361 (M.D.Fla., 2002);
Michigan
A dishonored check diversion company was found to violate the FDCPA by impersonating the Sherriff’s department in recovery of dishonored checks. Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc., 210 F.Supp.2d 907 (W.D.Mich. 2002);
The Court held that a check diversion company was a debt collector within the coverage of the FDCPA. Gadisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 988 (W.D.Mich. 2001);
North Carolina
The Court held that the collection agency’s letter overshadowed the validation notice in violation of the FDCPA and granted class certification. Woodard v.. Online Information Services, 191 F.R.D. 502 (E.D.N.C. 2000);
Utah
Owners and operators of a law firm were held to be debt collectors subject to the FDCPA. Brumbelow v. Law Offices of Bennett & DeLoney, 372 F.Supp.2d 615 (D.Utah 2005).
Washington
The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment that the collector’s affidavits seeking additional charges and fees violated the FDCPA.
Wisconsin
The law firm’s motion to dismiss was denied because plaintiff had sufficiently stated a claim for failing to state the amount of the debt, which could mislead or deceive an unsophisticated consumer by improperly implying that attorney fees were owed. Person v. Stupar, 136 F.Supp.2d 957 (E.D.Wis. 2001);