UDAAP Council Weekly UDAAP Standards Report - 3/11/2015

11 March 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.

Unfair or Deceptive

  • A debtor alleged that a debt collector’s representation through its counsel in a collection case that it was entitled to 25 percent of the judgment as compensation for its fees violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, where the court used that representation to award 25 percent of the judgment as fees without proof that counsel had actually performed work justifying the fees. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the debtor’s claims, finding that the debtor’s contract authorized the debt collector to recover fees in an amount up to 25 percent of the debt and where the debt collector’s counsel was entitled under state court procedure to estimate its probable fees. The debt collector’s inadvertent disclosure of the debtor’s Social Security number, which was quickly remedied, also did not support a cause of action under Setion 1692f. Elyazadi v. SunTrust Bank, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  • A debt collector’s complaint did not violate Sections 1692e or 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where it alleged the existence of an “account stated” between the debtor and debt collector, where the debt collector had been assigned the debt from the original creditor. The complaint properly identified the debt collector as an assignee of the debt. O’Bryne v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Deceptive

  • A lender’s failure to send a notice of default by certified mail, as required by Texas law, did not constitute a false or misleading assertion under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, given that the borrower had actual notice of his default as a result of a notice of acceleration he did receive by certified mail and therefore was not misled. Perkins v. Bank of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • Claims that creditors violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by filing proofs of claim in a Maryland bankruptcy without possessing licenses to do business in Maryland as debt collection agencies were properly dismissed by the district court. The plaintiffs, who were the debtors in the bankruptcy, should have raised their claims in the bankruptcy proceeding, but failed to do so. As a result, res judicata barred the debtors from asserting the claims outside of the bankruptcy proceeding. Covert v. LVNV Funding, LLC, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ