Unlawful Debt Collection

The complaint for this class action alleges that debt collectors CACH, LLC and Messerli & Kramer, PA violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) as well as the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA) when they file against consumers in the Nebraska courts. 

The complaint for this class action takes issue with a number of items in a debt collection letter sent by United Tranzactions, LLC. The complaint says these items, explained below, violate both the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) tries to ensure that consumer debtors are given information clearly and unambiguously. The complaint for this class action alleges that a collection letter from Paul Michael Associates was unclear and confusing as to whom the debt was currently owed. 

It’s bad enough to be a victim of identity theft, as plaintiff Lori Ann Gonzales was. But what if you were then pursued for the debts? The complaint in this class action says Comenity Capital Bank pursued Gonzales for debts that were not hers and did not follow the legal requirements for claims of identity theft. 

Debt collectors are not permitted to use any means they choose to hound a consumer debtor into paying. While the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lays down some ground rules, state laws may be even stricter. The complaint for this class action alleges that Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and the Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations (MDCR) by calling consumers as many as eight times in a week. 

State laws limit how long a consumer may be sued over a debt. Once that time period has expired, debt collectors cannot sue to collect. However, if the consumer makes a payment after that, the right to sue may be revived. The complaint for this class action alleges that Convergent Outsourcing violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it did not warn consumers with expired debts that any payment they made might revive its right to sue them. 

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) sets forth rules for the collection of consumer debts by third-pary debt collectors. The complaint for this class action claims that Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC violated the FDCPA because the use of the word “immediately” twice in the initial communication letter allegedly overshadows the allowance of a thirty-day period to dispute the debt.

Which debts are discharged in bankruptcy, and which are not? The complaint for this class action alleges that country club fees, even though linked to the person’s community of residence, are discharged—and that Toll Bros., Inc. cannot continue to dun people for them after bankruptcy. The complaint brings suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

When individuals or companies are in bankruptcy, the law protects them from attempts to collect on debts that were undertaken before the bankruptcy case. Debt collectors may also not attempt to collect debts that have been settled via a bankruptcy. The complaint for this class action claims that Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ignored a bankruptcy plan that included a property it believed it was servicing. The complaint claims that Shellpoint violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Imagine you rent a car for a day and return it without incident. Three months later, out of the blue, you’re dunned by a debt collector for over $1,300 worth of damage to the car. The complaint for this class action claims that this kind of thing has happened to many people who rented from Hertz Corporation rental companies, where the first they hear of “damage” is a letter from debt collector Viking Billing Service.