Simmonds & Narita LLP

Simmonds & Narita LLP Blogs

Blog Authors

Latest from Simmonds & Narita LLP

Attorneys who regularly engage in collection work for community
associations have increasingly become
targets for lawsuits filed by professional consumer attorneys under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq., and analogous state laws.
These suits can be costly, distracting, and can create significant
tensions between HOA

Can a communication from a collector violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et. seq. (the “FDCPA”) if it never asks the debtor to pay any money? What exactly does the term “debt collection” mean in the context of the FDCPA? These seemingly
simple questions have divided
the circuit courts,

with the meaning of the so-called “meaningful involvement” doctrine is one of
the most elusive and frustrating compliance challenges for collection attorneys
and their clients.  What exactly must a
collection attorney do to ensure they are “meaningfully involved” in a file
before sending a collection letter to a consumer?  When, if ever,

When collectors
get sued in an FDCPA action, they face a steep uphill battle.  Courts apply the very pro-consumer “least
sophisticated debtor” standard when evaluating a collector’s communications,
and most violations of the Act are “strict liability” – meaning the debtor can
win the case without proving the collector intended to violate the
statute.  Recently,

CFPB has entered into consent orders with major creditors, debt buyers and law
firms during the past year relating to key areas of their collection
practices.  The consent orders impose
significant new requirements relating to data integrity, dispute handling, debt
substantiation, debt sales, affidavit practices, and litigation practices.  The orders