Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect

Loan servicers and their counsel are often sued by consumers during contested mortgage foreclosure proceedings. The United States Supreme Court’s opinions in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins[1] and TransUnion v. Ramirez[2] continue to be an important precedent in defending consumer claims.

Last week, the North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association (NACARA) hosted its annual conference at the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s Sacramento office. The event served as a platform for state regulators and collection agency representatives to discuss the latest challenges and emerging trends affecting the industry.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc decision in Riccio v. Sentry Credit, overturning Graziano v. Harrison, after finding that there is no written dispute requirement in Section 1692g(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the court, this decision ends "a circuit split and restores national uniformity to the meaning of §1692g." Moreover, the decision applies retroactively to any claim still open on the issue, thus closing the chapter on a written requirement for Section 1692g.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently took the opportunity to apply its 2018 holding in Cohen v. Rosicki, which had held that a consumer pursuing a claim for violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a material misrepresentation. Materiality depends on "whether the false statement would frustrate a consumer's ability to intelligently choose his or her response," or if the representation "could mislead the debtor as to the negate and legal status of the underlying debt," or "could impede the consumer's ability to respond to or dispute collection."

Earlier this year, this blog reported on the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in circuits on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) statute of limitations. This week, in an 8:1 opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations in the FDCPA begins to run when the violation occurs, not when the violation is discovered. In doing so, they overturned rulings by the Fourth and Ninth Circuit, which had held the FDCPA's statute of limitations was subject to equitable tolling.

In Vedernikov v. Atl. Credit & Fin., Inc., (Vedernikov I), the U.S. District Court of New Jersey granted the defendant Midland Funding's motion to dismiss, which successfully argued the plaintiff should be estopped from bringing FDCPA claims that he failed to disclose during a bankruptcy action from which he had been discharged. After Midland Funding filed its motion to dismiss in Vedernikov I, the same Court also issued an Order to Show Cause and ultimately dismissed Vedernikov v. Oliphant Financial, LLC (Vedernikov II), another matter brought by the same plaintiff.

We previously discussed Avila v. Reliant (Avila II) and U.S. District Court Judge Spatt’s dismissal of a consumer’s attempt to sue on the “safe harbor” language she helped establish in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates (Avila I). As predicted, Avila II was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, the Court did not address Judge Spatt’s reasoning for the dismissal.

Less than three months after hearing oral arguments in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Case No. 17-1307, the United States Supreme Court held, in a 9-0 decision, that a business engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA, "the Act"), except for the limited prohibitions set forth in 1692(f)(6). The decision provides helpful guidance to law firms and loan servicers who pursue nonjudicial foreclosures.

On February 22, 2019, the Third Circuit in Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, issued a decision that expands the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) definition of the term "debt collector" to any entity that acquires debt for the purpose of collection, but outsources the actual debt collection activity.

As we predicted last year, the United States Supreme Court earlier this week granted Plaintiff's petition for certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in the circuits on whether the statute of limitations for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim begins when the alleged violation occurred (known as the "occurrence rule") or when the consumer discovers the alleged violation (known as the "discovery rule").

Effective March 28, 2019, § 601-a of New York's General Business Law ("GBL 601-a") will provide additional consumer protections to relatives of deceased borrowers. Typically, when a debtor passes away, the obligations on their uncollected debts pass to the debtor's estate. This can result in confusion about whom debt collectors should contact and what they can say regarding the decedent's unpaid debt. GBL 601-a will require, among other things, that no representations are made to relatives of deceased debtors to the effect that they are obligated to pay the decedent's unpaid debt.

For mortgage servicers and foreclosure firms, yesterday's oral argument before the Supreme Court in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, U.S. Supreme Court, 17-1307 and the upcoming decision, could be a game changer. At issue: a split in the federal circuits over whether the non-judicial foreclosure of a mortgage constitutes debt collection, as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Following the Second Circuit's 2016 decision in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates (Avila I), consumer plaintiff Annmarie Avila returned to court in Avila v. Reliant (Avila II) to sue for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) under the so called "safe-harbor" provision she helped establish in her previous successful appeal.

In a recent client alert, Hinshaw's Consumer Financial Services team recounted a series of notable federal court decisions they secured on behalf of debt collector clients in recent months. These included multiple wins at the Third and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, as well federal districts in Florida and Illinois.

In Rotkiske v. Klemm, the Third Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim begins to toll on the date of the alleged violation, not when the plaintiff discovers the violation. That's significant, because the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have ruled otherwise.

In Hill v. Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, a consumer sued a collection agency for violations of § 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) on allegations that the collection agency's exhibits submitted in a state court action—which proved the assignment of the debt from the creditor—were false, misrepresented the legal status of the debt, and threatened actions the agency did not intend to take. The FDCPA action followed the state court's decision to grant judgment in favor of the consumer. The district court granted the collection agency's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the complained of actions were not material. The consumer appealed.

Hinshaw obtained a significant ruling in the Seventh Circuit in Walton, which involved claims under both the FDCPA and the FCRA. The Defendant sent Deborah Walton a dunning letter, which stated she owed delinquent debt on an AT&T account. But the letter listed an invalid account number—the first three digits of the account number were transposed with the middle three digits. Walton called Defendant to dispute that the debt belonged to her, she acknowledged that her name and address were correct, but falsely denied that the last four digits of her social security number matched those given by the representative. Walton also sent a letter to Defendant asserting that she did "not own [sic] AT&T any money under the account number listed above." Defendant checked the information it had received from AT&T and sent Walton a letter reporting that, based on a records review, it had verified Walton's name, address, social security number, and the amount of the debt. Defendant also reported Walton's debt as disputed with two credit reporting agencies. Walton then disputed the debt to the credit reporting agencies, which triggered an ACDV[1] report to Defendant about Walton's dispute. The notice simply stated that the debt did not belong to her.

The Court of Appeals seems to have halted much uncertainty surrounding "reverse Avila" claims by unanimously affirming the New York federal court's decision in Taylor v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., No. 17-1650, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS ------- (2d Cir. March 29, 2018) (found here). In the wake of Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016), savvy plaintiffs have argued that the failure to disclose that a debt is no longer accruing interest is false and misleading in violation of Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Second Circuit disagreed and held that "a collection notice that fails to disclose that interest and fees are not currently accruing on a debt is not misleading " when the letter correctly states a consumer's balance when the letter was issued.

The New Jersey federal court has rejected a claim that providing a debtor with a telephone number and other options to communicate with a collector does not overshadow required language that the debtor must dispute the debt in writing within thirty days. The court found that the validation language concerning a consumer's right to dispute the debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) must be construed by considering as a whole the letter to the debtor.

Late last year, a debt collection agency went on the offensive and filed a RICO lawsuit against three FDCPA Plaintiff Law Firms, alleging that the Plaintiff Firms filed frivolous class action lawsuits under the FDCPA as a way to generate a quick settlement from them. Last week, Judge Michael Vazquez, in a sometimes scathing opinion, dismissed the suit, siding with the Plaintiff Firms. Judge Vazquez ultimately concluded that the filing of numerous class action lawsuits violates no laws, but is actually "standard practice." He found that the Amended Complaint was both factually and legally deficient, and the allegations that the Plaintiff Firms engaged in frivolous litigation were baseless. Moreover, Judge Vazquez concluded that filing litigation cannot form a basis for mail or wire fraud under RICO.