Every week, courts around the United States issue decisions addressing aspects of civil UDAAP claims.
In an effort to illuminate the UDAAP standards, below is a sampling of some of this week’s UDAAP decisions on the meaning of unfair, deceptive, and abusive.
A debtor failed to state a claim under Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where she alleged a debt collector had deceived her regarding her debt by sending her documents relating to another debtor’s debt, because the facts showed that she was not actually confused by the documents. Salaimeh v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
A debt collector’s letter that appeared to offer information about a loan modification program but also stated it was an attempt to collect a debt would confuse the least sophisticated consumer and therefore the debtor stated a plausible claim for relief under Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gregory v. Home Retention Services, Inc., United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The use of the term “settlement offer” and reference to the offer as being given in connection with “tax season” in a debt collector’s letter did not constitute deceptive conduct under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FDCPA does not prohibit debt collectors from extending bona fide settlement offers, and the letter’s reference to “tax season” did not imply that the debt collector would refuse to settle after tax season was over. Kryluk v. Northland Group, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
A claim that a lender scheduled a trustee’s sale of property and refused to postpone it while a borrower’s loan modification application was pending stated a claim for abusive foreclosure practices under a California statute prohibiting “dual tracking,” as well as California’s Unfair Competition Law. Even though the sale never took place, the purpose of the statute was to require lenders to give borrowers a clear answer regarding modification before commencing foreclosure. Foronda v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Note that this Weekly UDAAP Standards Report serves to highlight only some of the many weekly developments in the law around these standards.
Please feel free to contact me for more information or to discuss these cases or any other UDAAP developments.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.