How the FDCPA protects people from collection harassment and abuse
January 26, 2010 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
If you’ve been a victim of debt collection harassment or abuse and want to fight back, feel free to contact me for a free case evaluation.
CNN: Woman sues debt collector over husband’s death
December 10, 2009 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
CNN just ran a video segment about a Florida woman who is suing a debt collector for allegedly causing her husband’s death. I previously wrote about the case here.
Debt collector sues the wrong person then blames him for its mistake
December 7, 2009 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
Pressler & Pressler, a large debt collection law firm, sued the wrong Mark Hoyte. Although Hoyte’s social security number and date of birth did not match the ones in Pressler’s file, they continued with the lawsuit. Not until Pressler’s attorney talked to Hoyte in the hallway outside the courtroom did they finally admit that they had sued the wrong person and agree to dismiss the case. But the judge was not impressed. Judge Noach Dear asked Pressler’s attorney why his law firm didn’t make sure it had the right person before suing. The attorney responded by saying said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors. “So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.
But instead of conceding its mistake, Pressler’s lawyer then tried to blame Hoyte. He asked Hoyte if he had provided Pressler with any written proof that he wasn’t the debtor. Hoyte responded by saying that Pressler never asked for written proof. Incredibly, Pressler’s attorney then told Hoyte that “[s]o without any written proof that it’s not you, you would expect someone just, you know, to go on say-so”?
This is yet another example of the sue first, ask questions later approach used by most debt collectors. But for the debt collector to blame the innocent consumer, in open court and on the record, takes quite a bit of, ahem, nerve. Judge Dear is considering sanctions against Pressler for its easily-avoided mistake.
Hello, Collections? The Worm Has Turned | New York Times | November 27, 2009
What is debt collection harassment?
December 3, 2009 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
Sounds like an easy question, right? But there has been a lot of litigation over what exactly is considered “harassment” or “abuse” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Here are some debt collection tactics that are definitely considered harassment and abuse under the FDCPA:
- Debt collectors cannot use violence to collect a debt. They can’t even threaten it. This prohibition also covers threats against your children, friends, and other third parties.
- Bill collectors can’t use profane or abusive language. Obviously different people have different definitions of “profane or abusive”. But at least one court has ruled that name calling and racial or ethnic slurs are profane and abusive.
- Collectors can’t call you repeatedly. This not only applies to actual telephone conversations, but also to causing the phone to ring. For example, redialing your number after you’ve hung up the phone.
- Debt collectors must tell you who is calling. Fairly self-explanatory. But there is some debate about whether collectors can use a consistent alias. Not surprisingly, many collectors would rather not use their real name when on the job. So some courts have allowed the use of aliases.
- Any other debt collection conduct where the “natural consequence” is to harass, oppress, or abuse. This is the catch-all provision. Again, it can be tough to define what conduct has the natural consequence to harass, oppress, or abuse, but courts have found the following conduct to be violations of this section: (1) threats to contact third parties; (2) telephone messages left with neighbors when the collector could have reached the consumer directly; (3) use of words like “liar”, “deadbeat”, and “crook”.
If you live in Minnesota and have been subjected to these, or similar, abusive debt collection tactics, feel free to contact me for a free case evaluation.
Sorry debt collectors, the 1st Amendment does not allow unfair and deceptive tactics
November 30, 2009 by Todd Murray · Leave a Comment
The Supreme Court of Alaska recently ruled that a debt collector’s unfair and deceptive tactics are not protected by the First Amendment. Apparently, the decision is the first appellate ruling on the issue by any court nationwide.
Robin Pepper, a mentally disabled woman, was sued by an Alaska debt collector without proper notice. The debt collector sent letters to a nonexistent address, misrepresented that Pepper was competent, and improperly sought a default judgment against her. Pepper then sued the debt collector under Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. The collector’s main defense was that its conduct was protected by the First Amendment.
The Alaska Supreme Court held that the First Amendment’s petition clause does not extend to conduct that was unfair, deceptive, and in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. In so holding, the court ruled that debt collectors have “no legitimate interest in pursuing collection litigation without notifying debtors, or in seeking to default incompetent debtors without notice to their lawyers or guardians.”
Alaska Supreme Court Rejects Debt Collectors’ First Amendment Defense | Consumer Law & Policy Blog | November 24, 2009
