In Lewis v. Nationstar, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by continuing collection activity after receipt of a verification request without first verifying the debt. Defendant move dot dismiss, arguing that the verification had already been provided to plaintiff by an earlier agency. The court denied the motion, finding that the FDCPA required each debt collector to independently verify a debt before resuming collection activity, even if the debt had already been verified.
In Boyd v. General Revenue, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA and TCPA by continuing to communicate with him without verifying the debt, and calling his cell phone after revoking consent. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the verification request was ineffective as it occurred after the 30 day verification period, and that the calls were manually dialed and that provided consent. The court granted the motion, finding that the FDCPA protections were waived by plaintiff after he failed to request verification within 030 days of receiving the verification notice, and that the TCPA claim failed because plaintiff had consented to the calls by providing his cell number to the creditor on his loan application, and all calls were manually dialed by a collector.► Back to News & Resources