UDAAP Council Weekly UDAAP Standards Report - 1/07/2015

07 January 2015 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog

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 violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a per se violation of Massachusetts’ UDAP statute (Chapter 93A). McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
  • A borrower stated a claim for unfair practices under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act where he alleged that his mortgage lender accepted a deed in lieu of foreclosure with a set date for him to vacate the mortgaged property, but then entered the property and removed his belongings prior to that date. Elmore v. Bank of America, N.A., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.


  • A debtor did not state a claim for deceptive debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where she did not identify any misrepresentation by the debt collector of the identity of the creditor or the legal status of the debt. The debtor alleged that the use of the word “Creditor” instead of the name of the creditor in the debt collector’s letters was ambiguous and that the use of the phrase “settlement offer” implied that legal action was imminent, but the court did not find either allegation convincing. Johns v. Northland Group, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


  • A debtor stated a claim of abusive conduct under Section 1692d of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where she alleged that a loan servicer treated her loan as in default after she entered into a loan modification, attempted to collect and assess illegal fees and costs, and refused to respond to the debtor’s inquiries about the debt. The court found that the debtor had properly alleged that the servicer had threatened to impose penalties that it knew were improper and unlawful. Gritters v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

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.

Related Services