In his first written opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not apply to debt buyers like Santander under one of the definitions for “debt collector.” This decision has potentially broad ramifications for financial institutions that purchase debts for collection as part of their business. At the same time, the decision leaves the door open to potential future disputes under the remaining definitions under the FDCPA.
Author: David Scheffel
On May 15, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it is not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to file a proof of claim in bankruptcy related to a debt for which the statute of limitations has expired, resolving a previous circuit court split regarding the issue.
On January 12, 2017, Judge Failla of the District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in a case involving QWR-related claims that provides additional guidance regarding the liability risks that mortgage servicers face in connection with QWRs.
Trump University filed a motion to compel the New York State Attorney General to produce the names of the consumers who were allegedly defrauded by Trump University and to produce those witnesses to testify at depositions.
On September 15, 2016, Dorsey partners David A. Scheffel, Eric Epstein, and Nicholas A. J. Vlietstra of Dorsey’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group gave a presentation on the bank examination privilege.
On July 26, 2016, the D.C. Circuit rejected a consumer class action complaint based on alleged violations of two D.C. consumer protection statutes. Citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the D.C. Circuit found that the lead plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege any harm suffered from the alleged violations.
In September 2015, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the City of Miami had sufficient standing to sue Bank of America and Wells Fargo over lending practices that were alleged to be racially discriminatory. On June 28, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case. The Supreme Court’s decision on this case could have a significant impact on who is entitled to bring fair lending claims against mortgage lenders and what standards of standing such claimants must meet.
On May 9, 2016, Integrity Advance, LLC and its CEO James Carnes filed suit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) in United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to enjoin the CFPB from continuing to prosecute an administrative enforcement action under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”) in which the CFPB alleged unfair, deceptive or abusive lending practices.
Tax Lien on Me: Fifth Circuit Holds the Transfer of a Tax Lien is not Subject to the Truth in Lending Act
On April 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the transfer of a tax lien does not constitute an extension of “credit” subject to the protections of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”).
The Supreme Court of Iowa recently held that non-sufficient funds fees (“NSF fees”) charged by a state-chartered Iowa bank are not subject to the usury provisions of the Iowa Consumer Credit Code (“ICCC”) because the transactions at issue did not constitute extensions of credit.
In a recent decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a three-year lease-to-own agreement for a water heater was not subject to certain disclosure requirements.
As previously reported on this blog, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) adopted a burden-shifting approach to assessing claims that housing policies cause disparate impact on minority populations in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) (42 U.S.C. § 3601). By adopting that approach, the Court confirmed the availability of this form of lawsuit against government entities that implement housing policies.
A little over one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), which resolved a circuit court spit regarding how a mortgage borrower may exercise the right of rescission under the Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”).