In Enedah v. America’s Servicing Co., plaintiff alleged that the defendant law firm violated the FDCPA when attempting to collect a mortgage loan. Defendant’s sole involvement in collecting the debt was alleged to be executing assignments and acting as foreclosure counsel for the creditor. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that, though the law firm was generally subject to the FDCPA, the actions of attempting to foreclose on a security interest was not “debt collection” subject to the FDCPA.
In Navarro v. Monarch, plaintiff accepted defendant’s offer of judgment to settle her FDCPA claim, but were unable to negotiate the amount of attorney fees. Plaintiff, represented by Krohn & Moss, filed a fee petition seeking $3,830 in fees and costs, based on the work done by the attorney handling the case along with a “consulting attorney.” The court agreed that plaintiff was entitled to fees, and that both attorneys’ time should be compensated, but the court reduced the amount of time being billed and reduced the rate, and awarded a total of $2,955.
► Back to News & Resources
