UDAAP Council Weekly UDAAP Standards Report - 1/14/2015

14 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.

Deceptive

  • A mortgage lender was entitled to judgment in its favor on borrowers’ claims that it engaged in deceptive practices in violation of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The borrowers’ allegations that the lender failed to disclose deferred interest and negative amortization of their adjustable rate mortgage loan failed given provisions in the loan documents disclosing the potential for such charges. Tennier v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
  • A plaintiff did not state a claim for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act where he alleged that a debt collector sent her letters and called her after her regarding settling her mortgage lien after her debt was discharged in bankruptcy.  The court found that the plaintiff failed to allege any misleading statement or damages. Ferrara v. LCS Financial Services Corp., United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Abusive

  • A debt collector was entitled to judgment in its favor on allegations that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by calling a debtor five times and reporting the debt to a credit reporting agency after the debtor verbally disputed the debt. Oral dispute of a debt does not trigger the statutory obligation for a debt collector to cease collection efforts. Hinkle v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
  • A borrower failed to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it alleged that a loan servicer engaged in abusive conduct by threatening nonjudicial foreclosure after a mediator refused to issue a certificate of foreclosure and contacting the borrower after his counsel repeatedly directed it not to. The FDCPA does not apply to actions relating to nonjudicial foreclosure. Dowers v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

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.

Best,

Marty

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

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT