In Morgan v. LVNV Funding, plaintiff alleged that defendant misrepresented the amount of the debt by sending various letters that contained different balances of the debt. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the different balances were the result of additional interest charges. The court granted the motion, concluding that the least sophisticated consumer would understand the debt would continue to accrue interest, and would not be misled by the increasing balances.
In Peters v. Financial Recovery Services, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by continuing to charge interest on a purchased account after the original creditor had charged-off the debt and stopped sending billing statements to plaintiff. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the original creditor’s failure to continue to send periodic billing statements as required by TILA did not preclude the debt buyer from continuing to assess interest. The court granted the motion, finding that defendant had the right to continue to impose interest charges post charge-off under state law at the statutory rate.
In Quinteros v. MBI, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by imposing a $5 processing fee for any check or credit card payments made by phone. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the fee was permitted because the consumer agreed to the charge. In denying the motion, the court held that the processing fee was incidental to the debt, and that plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the fee was neither permitted by state law nor the agreement between plaintiff and the creditor (as opposed to a different agreement between plaintiff and the debt collector).
► Back to News & Resources
