In Galati v. Manely Deas, plaintiff alleged that the defendant law firm violated the FDCPA by initiating a foreclosure action when it knew or should have known that the firm’s client was not the holder of the mortgage or entitled to enforce the debt.  After the district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff appealed.  The appellate court affirmed, concluding that even if the defendant did not have the immediate means to prove the debt, there was nothing improper in filing the foreclosure action and that the assignment of the mortgage from a defunct bank was not capable of confusing the least sophisticated consumer regarding whether the debt was actually owed.

► Back to News & Resources