Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.33 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Harassment, Abuse, and Threats

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 (Fla.) Finds Non-Debtor Stated No Harassment Claim

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Sclafani v. BC Services, here, Judge Huck held refused to allow an FDCPA harassment claim by a non-debtor to proceed against a debt collection agency.  As to the mini-Miranda requirement, Judge Huck explained:    To allow a person who knows that he does not owe a debt, and does not even know the debtor, to bring suit as a… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Grants Summary Judgment (and Denies Reconsideration) on FDCPA Harassment Claim

by Scott J. Hyman |

The FDCPA offers no definitive number on how many telephone calls constitutes harassment under 15 U.S.C. 1692d(5) and Civil Code 1788.11(e).  Recent jurisprudence, at least under the FDCPA, has suggested that a showing of pattern, intent, and consumer complaints about the excessive calls may be required.  For example, in Winberry v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2010 WL 996144 (M.D.Ala. 2010), Judge… Read More

District Court (Ala.) Says Advising Debtor of Consequences of Failure to Pay Does Not Violate FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Shuler v. Ingram & Associates, 2010 WL 1833626 (N.D.Ala. 2010), Judge Kallon addressed what constitutes harassment, both in substance and frequency.   As to substance, Judge Kallon listed to audiotapes and found that testiness and advising a consumer of the consequences of their (in)action did not violate the FDCPA.   Section 1692d(2) forbids debt collectors from “engaging in any conduct… Read More

District Court (Ala.) Says 33 Calls in 1 Month Gets By Summary Judgment in FDCPA Harassment Claim

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Winberry v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2010 WL 996144 (M.D.Ala. 2010), Judge Albritton addressed the debt collector's summary judgment motion on a number of claims made by the Plaintiffs, among them that the the defendant's 33 calls in 1 month did not constitute harassment under the FDCPA.  Judge Albritton rejected the debt collector's claim, explaining that   Viewing this testimony… Read More

District Court (Az.) Says “May” Means “Can”; Requires Direct, Non-Hearsay Testimony to Prove Illegal Third Party Contacts

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Nichols v. GC Services, LP, 2009 WL 3488365 (D. Ariz. 2009), the United States District Court for Arizona addressed purported threats regarding what the debt collector may or may not do:   In determining whether a threat has been made, “the conditional nature of a statement, such as the use of the words ‘may’ or ‘possible,’ does not negate… Read More

District Court (Az.) Explains Whether FDCPA Requires Current Right to Garnish

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Savage v. NIC, Inc. 2009 WL 2259726 (D.Ariz. 2009) , Judge Teilborg explained the quantum of evidence necessary for a finding of harassment, as well as whether 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4), which prohibits a debt collector from representing or implying  to a plaintiff that nonpayment will result in garnishment of wages unless such action is lawful and the debt… Read More

1 … 3 4 5