In Harris v. Barton, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by falsely representing meaningful attorney involvement in the sending of collection letters. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the claim was barred by the FDCPA's one year statute of limitation. The court denied the motion, finding that the date the letter was sent was disputed, and that discovery would be needed to determine the date the letter was sent.
In Grubb v. Green Tree Servicing, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending false or misleading collection letters. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the letter was a "welcome letter" and not an attempt to collect the mortgage debt. The letter stated, "as of April 30, 2013, you owe $307,606.12". In denying defendant's motion, the court found that, though no explicit demand for payment was made, the letter was an attempt to collect the debt because it stated the amount of the debt, and provided payment options.
In Gersten v. Clunk Law Firm, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA attempting to collect a mortgage debt in foreclosure proceedings. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the FDCPA would not apply to statements made in judicial proceedings. The court denied defendant's motion, finding that the actions made during the foreclosure proceeding could be subject to the FDCPA.
In Akoundi v. FMS, plaintiff alleged that defendant's letter violated the FDCPA because it incorrectly stated the amount of the settlement by one cent. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding any math error was not material or actionable under the FDCPA.
► Back to News & Resources
