Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.42 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Form: 30-Day Validation Notice

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 (Ill.), in Deciding Whether State FDCPA Embeds a Substantial Federal Question, Holds That Reg. F’s Safe Harbor Does Not “Require” Use of Model Form

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Collectional Pros., Inc. v. McDonough Dist. Hosp., No. 4:22-cv-04078-SLD-JEH, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187320, at *8 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2022), Judge Darrow found no federal question in an FDCPA Plaintiff's challenge to the propriety of a dunning letter that purported to follow Reg. F's model form. Though certainly a policy against abusive debt collection is important, the Court… Read More

9th Cir. Says Request for Contact in Validation Letter Did Not Overshadow 30-day Notice

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Stuppiello v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., 2018 WL 2015486, at *1–2 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a request for contact in a validation letter did not overshadow the 30-day notice. Stuppiello complains of a letter in which the Defendant-Appellee informed him that a $612.32 debt “[was] due in full.” In that… Read More

District Court (Va.) Says Debt Collector’s Validation Violated the FDCPA Because It Omitted Statute’s Term “By the Collector” as to Who Would Assume the Debt to be Valid in the Absence of Dispute

by Scott J. Hyman |

In DeCapri v. Law Offices of Shaprio Brown & Alt, LLP, 2014 WL 4699591 (E.D.Va. 2014), Judge Hudson found a debt collection law firm’s FDCPA validation non-compliant with the FDCPA. Among other violations, Judge Hudson stated: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) by failing to include “by the debt collector” or similar language in the letter's validation… Read More

9th Circuit Explains Camacho — Says Validation Notice that Implies, but Does Not Require, Dispute to be in Writing Passes Muster under FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, A Law Corp. --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 2054640 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA if his letter starting collection efforts states expressly that the debtor must dispute the debt in writing within 30 days or have the debt deemed valid. Camacho… Read More

Third Circuit Disagrees with Ninth Circuit — Says Communications Between Counsel Subject to FDCPA

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Allen v. LaSalle Bank, -- F.3d – (3d Cir. 2011), here, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 934-39 (9th Cir. 2007) and found inter-counsel communications are subject to the FDCPA, explaining:    As noted above, the issue here is whether § 1692f(1)… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds Failure to Plead Either Absence of Meaningingful Involvement or a Camacho Validation Violation

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 2010 WL 3238969 (N.D.Cal.), Judge Fogel held that, under Iqbal and Twombly, an FDCPA plaintiff failed to state a claim for lack of meaningful attorney involvement or for violating the Camacho  standard for debt validation warnings.  As to the former, Judge Fogel explained,   Plaintiff contends that her allegations that (1) Defendants sent the… Read More