Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner Banking Blog

Bank BCLP

Debt Collection

Main Content

Fair Debt Collection – In Writing, and We Mean It

August 8, 2018

Authors

Jim Goldberg

Fair Debt Collection – In Writing, and We Mean It

August 8, 2018

by: Jim Goldberg

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals continues to contribute to the case law defining which violations of procedural statutes constitute an injury-in-fact under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016).

In Macy v GC Services Limited Partnership, it holds that Plaintiffs alleged sufficient concrete harm to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing where the defendant debt

Read More

Supreme Court to Address Whether Collection of Time-Barred Debts Violate FDCPA

October 14, 2016

Authors

Robert Klingler

Supreme Court to Address Whether Collection of Time-Barred Debts Violate FDCPA

October 14, 2016

by: Robert Klingler

Our colleagues at The Bankruptcy Cave, Bryan Cave’s Bankruptcy & Restructuring Blog, recently published a blog post on the Supreme Court agreeing to to hear the issue of whether a debt collector that buys old, charged off debt which is beyond the statute of limitations violations the Fair Debt Collection practices Act when it files a proof of claim on that debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy (which they all do, as no one has an incentive to object to the claim, and they often collect far more on the debt than what they paid).

[On October 11, 2016,]

Read More

Can a Guarantor Waive his Right to a Foreclosure Confirmation Proceeding in Georgia?

February 23, 2016

Authors

Curtis Romig, Jerry Blanchard and Leah Fiorenza McNeill

Can a Guarantor Waive his Right to a Foreclosure Confirmation Proceeding in Georgia?

February 23, 2016

by: Curtis Romig, Jerry Blanchard and Leah Fiorenza McNeill

Yes.

On Monday, February 22, 2016, in a case closely watched by commercial real estate lenders, borrowers and guarantors, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued its opinion in PNC Bank, N.A.  v. Smith, et al., S15Q1445.  The case was before the Supreme Court on two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The two Certified Questions were: (1) Is a lender’s compliance with the requirements contained in OCGA § 44-14-161 a condition precedent to the lender’s ability to pursue a borrower and/or guarantor for a deficiency after a foreclosure has been conducted?; and (2)

Read More

Hefty Fine Against Major Bank Reminds Companies Offering Add-On Products that the CFPB Is Watching

October 15, 2015

Authors

Seyi Iwarere

Hefty Fine Against Major Bank Reminds Companies Offering Add-On Products that the CFPB Is Watching

October 15, 2015

by: Seyi Iwarere

The CFPB has issued another enforcement action exceeding the half-billion dollar mark against a large bank for its add-on product offerings. Citibank and its subsidiaries were penalized for alleged deceptive marketing, unfair billing and deceptive debt collection involving its credit card add-on products and services. This marks the tenth public enforcement action that the CFPB has announced for practices associated with marketing or administering add-on products in its four-year history.

As part of the settlement Citi was ordered to pay $700 million in restitution to about 8.8 million consumers who were impacted by the add-on product offerings. The company

Read More

FTC Targets Banks under FDCPA

September 28, 2015

Authors

Douglas Thompson

FTC Targets Banks under FDCPA

September 28, 2015

by: Douglas Thompson

Who Is An FDCPA Excluded “Creditor”?

The FTC Seeks to Overturn An 11th Circuit Ruling That A Bank Is.

Banking lawyers whose institutions acquire loans or card accounts may want to watch how this 11th Circuit putative class action case issue plays out. The FTC’s brief supports the plaintiffs’ class action bar, and the outcome of the appeal if reversed could further spur both regulatory enforcement activity and consumer class actions.

The FTC recently filed an amicus brief in a consumer’s appeal pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Davidson

Read More

Oral Arguments on HWA Decision

September 16, 2015

Authors

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

Oral Arguments on HWA Decision

September 16, 2015

by: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

On Monday, September 14, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of PNC Bank, National Assoc. vs. Kenneth D. Smith, et al., Case No. S15Q1445.

As noted in our prior blog post, this case is of great interest to banks operating in Georgia which are involved in real estate lending.  At issue is whether a lender may conduct a non-judicial foreclosure on real estate serving as collateral, and then pursue a guarantor without first pursuing a confirmation of the sale.  In addition, the Court is being asked to consider whether a guarantor may waive such

Read More

Georgia Garnishment Statute Held Unconstitutional

September 15, 2015

Authors

Bill Custer, Jerry Blanchard and Jennifer Dempsey

Georgia Garnishment Statute Held Unconstitutional

September 15, 2015

by: Bill Custer, Jerry Blanchard and Jennifer Dempsey

The recent opinion of Judge Marvin Shoob in the Strickland v. Alexander case has created a great deal of confusion among banks about their duties in responding to a summons of garnishment in Georgia.  In that opinion, Judge Shoob declared the Georgia garnishment statute to be unconstitutional on multiple grounds. Primary among the  grounds cited by Judge Shoob was the absence of any notice to the debtor of the existence of statutory exemptions which shield certain funds from garnishment or the procedures available to assert those exemptions.  It is unclear whether the decision will be appealed, modified, or cured by subsequent legislation.  Numerous

Read More

Transfer of Servicing Letter under RESPA Triggers FDCPA Notice Requirements

September 15, 2015

Authors

Jim Goldberg

Transfer of Servicing Letter under RESPA Triggers FDCPA Notice Requirements

September 15, 2015

by: Jim Goldberg

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) provides that within five days of any initial communication with a consumer “in connection with the collection of any debt,” a debt collector shall send the consumer a written notice.  The notice must contain, among other things, the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed valid by the debt collector.

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures

Read More

Bryan Cave Files Amicus Brief On Behalf Of Georgia Bankers Association Regarding Recent HWA Decision

September 11, 2015

Authors

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

Bryan Cave Files Amicus Brief On Behalf Of Georgia Bankers Association Regarding Recent HWA Decision

September 11, 2015

by: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

Today, Bryan Cave filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Georgia Bankers Association in a case currently pending before the Georgia Supreme Court styled PNC Bank, National Assoc. vs. Kenneth D. Smith, et al., Case No. S15Q1445.  The case is of great interest to banks operating in Georgia because the Supreme Court will be reviewing the reasoning of the HWA Properties, Inc. v. Cmty. & S. Bank, 322 Ga. App. 877 (2013) decision, in which the Georgia Court of Appeals held that a lender was entitled to pursue a guarantor for any deficiency remaining on a debt

Read More

Debt Collector has Burden to Prove FDCPA Exception

August 6, 2015

Authors

Jim Goldberg

Debt Collector has Burden to Prove FDCPA Exception

August 6, 2015

by: Jim Goldberg

Under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, a debt collector is liable to a consumer for contacting third parties in pursuit of that consumer’s debt unless the communication falls under a statutory exception. One of those exceptions covers communication with a third party for acquiring location information about the consumer.  Even then, the Act prohibits more than one such contact unless the debt collector reasonably believes that the earlier response of the third party was erroneous or incomplete and that such person now has correct or complete location information.

The first federal court of appeals to address the issue has

Read More
The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.