In LaGrone v. LVNV, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim on a debt that was time-barred.  Defendant moved to dismiss, and contrary to the recent trend, the bankruptcy court agreed and dismissed the case.  Specifically, the court found that the filing of a bankruptcy claim that is subject to an affirmative defense, without more, is neither unfair, false or misleading under the FDCPA.  There is also a petition pending the Supreme Court to review the recent Crawford decision out of the Eleventh Circuit that reached an opposite conclusion and found that the filing of the proof of claim is an FDCPA violation.

 

In Tucker v. U.S. Bank, et al, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending a collection letter addressed to his wife attempting to collect a debt that only plaintiff owed, and thereby disclosing the debt to a third party.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the FDCPA allowed defendant to communicate with plaintiff’s spouse.  The court agreed and granted the motion, finding that the term “consumer” included a debtor’s spouse. 

 

In Schmidt v. Synergetic Communications, plaintiff alleged that the collection agency and individuals at the agency violated the FDCPA  by attempting to collect a debt while not licensed as a collection agency by the state.  The individual defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that they could not be personally liable under the FDCPA and were not debt collectors.  The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state a plausible claim against the individuals, when plaintiff alleged that the individuals were corporate officers of the agency and controlled and directed the allegedly unlawful collection practices.

Back to News & Resources