Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.34H — False or Misleading Representations (Threat to Falsify Credit Report)

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

District Court (N.C.) Finds Evidentiary Dispute Regarding Whether Credit Report from CRAs is Sufficient to Demonstrate Furnisher’s 1692e(8) Obligation to Report Account as Disputed

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Richmond v. Medicredit, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-00068-KDB-DSC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130092, at *8 (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2022), Judge Bell denied an FDCPA defendant's summary judgment motion. The Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Medicredit reported Richmond's debts as disputed to the credit reporting agencies ("CRAs"). The FDCPA protects consumers from certain… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Strike Two on FDCPA Plaintiff’s Contention that a Debt Collector Should Not Have Reported an Account as “Disputed” After the Debtor No Longer Disputed the Debt

by Scott J. Hyman |

We previously reported on this case here:  https://www.severson.com/consumer-finance/district-court-cal-finds-no-fdcpa-claim-based-on-reporting-account-as-disputed-when-debtor-did-not-dispute-the-debt/ Now, again, in Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114028, at *4-8 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2022), Magistrate Oberta again granted a Motion to Dismiss, but again gave leave to amend, on whether credit reporting constituted debt collection activity. The purposes of the FDCPA are "to eliminate… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds No FDCPA Claim Based on Reporting Account as “Disputed” When Debtor Did Not Dispute the Debt

by Scott J. Hyman |

In a strange fact pattern, in Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72102, at *11-14 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022), Magistrate Judge Oberto dismissed FDCPA claims derived from Plaintiff's complaint that the debt collector reported the Account as disputed when the Plaintiff previously had written to the debt collector to advise that he did not… Read More

District Court (Ala.) Says FDPCA Plaintiff States 1692e(8) Claim For Collector’s Failure to Report Subsequent Report as “Disputed”

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Canady v. Kaps & Co. (USA) Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 4:20-CV-1253-CLM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148878, at *7-9 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2021), Judge Maze found that an FDCPA Plaintiff stated a 1692e(8) claim. Kaps also argues that Canady's complaint fails to state a claim under § 1692e(8) because Canady alleges that she disputed the debt only after Kaps… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Outlines Obligations of Debt Collector Dealing with “Disputed” Consumer Reporting under FDCPA 1692e(8)

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Wood v. Sec. Credit Servs., LLC, No. 20-cv-02369, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135926, at *5 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2021), Judge Norgle denied summary judgment against a debt collector due to a question of fact regarding the debt collector's knowledge of a dispute regarding the reporting of the debt.  The District Court outlined the legal standards under 15 USC… Read More

District Court (Ind.) Says Debt Collector Violated FDCPA By Failing to Report Debt as Disputed

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Webster v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., No. 1:18-cv-03940-TWP-DML, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128233 (S.D. Ind. July 21, 2020), Judge Walton Pratt found that a debt collector violated the FDCPA by failing to report an account as ‘disputed’ despite the fact that the consumer did not dispute the debt within the 30-day validation period and despite the consumer’s faxing a dispute… Read More

District Court (Tex.) Says FDCPA Plaintiff Pleaded a 1692e(8) Claim Because Debt Collector Failed to Report Account as Disputed

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Krier v. United Revenue Corp., No. 3:19-CV-2954-G, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74844 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2020), Judge Fish allowed an FDCPA claim premised on 15 USC 1692e(8) because the debt collector did not report the account a disputed. Krier claims that United violated Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by failing to include notice of Krier's dispute in the… Read More

District Court (Fla.) Says Debt Collector’s Reporting to CRAs Did Not Trigger Potential FDCPA Exposure

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Koehler v. Waypoint Res. Grp., No. 8:18-cv-2071-T-60AAS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191438 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019), the District Court held that a debt collector’s reporting of a cable bill to the CRAs did not trigger the FDCPA. All of Koehler's FDCPA claims are based on Waypoint's error in reporting the original creditor as "Charter Communications" rather than "Bright… Read More

District Court (D.C.) Says Debt Collector’s Failure to Report Account as “Disputed” Could Violate Multiple Provisions of the FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Hall v. Southwest Credit Sys., L.P., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73350, *5-11 (D.C. Dist. May 1, 2019), Judge Howell found that a debt collector's failure to report to the consumer reporting agencies that the account was "disputed" could violate multiple provisions of the FDCPA. This case concerns one allegation: The defendant reported a debt to credit bureaus that the… Read More

7th Cir. Says Debt Collector’s Reporting Account to CRAs After Receiving a Dispute Letter from Debtor Violates the FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2018 WL 2035315, at *5–7 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA when the debt collector receives an (untimely) dispute from a debtor in response to a 30-day validation letter and thereafter reports the account to a consumer reporting agency without reporting… Read More

8th Cir. Says Debt Collector’s Re-investigation of Consumer Debt under FCRA was not a “Communication” that Triggered the FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In McIvor v. Credit Control Services, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 6805380 (8th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a debt collector’s reinvestigation of a credit dispute and communications with the CRAs was not a “communication” in connection with the collection of a debt under FCRA because, instead, it was the debt collector’s… Read More

District Court (Fla.) Finds Plaintiff Pleaded a FCRA Claim against Check Services Company for Not Reporting Account as Disputed; But Found No FDCPA Claim Because Credit Reporting, By Itself, Is Not Debt Collection

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Calhoun v. Certegy Check Services, Inc., 2014 WL 4146886 (M.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Whittemore found that a Plaintiff stated a FCRA claim against a check services company for failing to report an account as ‘disputed’ during its reinvestigation. Plaintiff brought this action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt… Read More