Case Law in Support
of Suing Debt Collectors

Inside of each case, and in some of the white papers,
you will find additional cases or case sites you can use
to further support your case and arguments.

Within the US District Courts are a collection of unsung heros. They prepare reports that are loaded with case law to either support or defeat complaints or motions before the court. The judge in a case will assign all of the grunt work to this person and he will review all before him, and make up a report and recommendation to the judge for the judge to consider, adopt or set aside. The heros are the Magistrates. Pay a lot of attention to their reports and recommendations, they can be a goldmine of case law and arguments in support of what ever arguments you are attempting to make.

FDCPA Case Law,
SCOTUS Where known

Last Updated: July 13, 2014

A selection of Golden Cases and medley of good FDCPA & FCRA case law. Many different issues cited in this one file.

FDCPA lawsuit and action to collect underlying debt are not compulsory counterclaims. Peterson v. United Accounts, Inc., 638 F.2d 1134 (8th Cir. 1981). Consumer is therefore not barred from filing separate FDCPA action even when previously sued on the debt. Debt collector may not maintain collection action as counterclaim in federal court - Kuhn v. Account Control Technology, Inc., 865 F.Supp. 1443 (D. Nev. 1994).

A medley of good FDCPA case law. 5 Different issues cited in this one file.

When debt incurred for combined consumer and nonconsumer purposes, fact question as to which purpose was primary reason debt was incurred - 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(5). In other words, can a business card fall under the FDCPA as consumer debt?

In 2008, plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. During the proceeding, LVNV filed a proof of claim to collect the Heilig-Meyers debt, notwithstanding the limitations period had expired four years earlier. At issue on appeal was whether a proof of claim to collect a stale debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p. The court answered in the affirmative. The FDCPA's broad language, the court's precedent, and the record compelled the conclusion that defendants' conduct violated a number of the Act's protective provisions. Accordingly, the court reversed the orders of the bankruptcy court and the district court dismissing the adversary proceeding.

Deals with issues of the plain language of the statute, and where and when a dispute in writing is required.(1998)

Great FDCPA Case Law Citations. If you know of a case citation that should be included, please let me know and I consider adding it to the list.

Heintz v. Jenkins Does the term "debt collector" in the FDCPA apply to a lawyer who "regularly," tries to collect consumer debts.

Cach, LLC v. Jon Askey. Standing, competent fact witness, jurisdiction, all in a FDCPA case.

HORKEY v. J.V.D.B. & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Phone calls without consent, no validation notice, overshadowing, profane language (even to a 3rd party).

     HORKEY v. J.V.D.B. & ASSOCIATES - Appeal. District Court findings upheld.

Brown v. Apothaker & Associates, P.C. Verification/Validation, what is required.

Turner v. Shenandoah Legal Group - Magistrates Report and Recommendation, a very comprehensive piece of work by the Magistrate

FCRA Case Law,
SCOTUS Where known

Last Updated: August 12, 2014

A selection of Golden Cases and medley of good FDCPA & FCRA case law. Many different issues cited in this one file.

Unifund Important PRECEDENTIAL Court Case

Notes and Case Law -Related to FCRA and Actual Damages

Harkins v Diversified FCRA Impermissible Purpose - MD

     Court Approves Harkins Amended Complaint - MD

     Harkins Amended Complaint Permissible Purpose - MD

     Harkins Motion for Summary Judgment Permissible Purpose - MD

     Diversified Opposition to Harkins Motion for Summary Judgment Permissible Purpose - MD

     Diversified Stipulates to Dismissal Permissible Purpose - MD

Rice v Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 450 F. sup. 688, 670-72 (M.D. N.C. 1978) Defendant violates FCRA if it obtains a consumer report on Plaintiff after Plaintiff insitutes an action against defendant. Such an inquiry is impermissible.

TCPA Case Law,
SCOTUS Where known

Obtaining your credit report without a permissible purpose, the collection of a debt is a permissible purpose, yet, can the debt collector actually certify that the debt, in fact, is yours. If Rosenau v. Unifund Corp U.S.D. 3rd Cir., No. 07-3019 6/30/08 and the FTC's publication titled "Structures and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry" (Jan. 2013) are to believed, they cannot.

Obtaining your credit report during litigation. A most definite no, no. A felony in fact. See 15 USC §1681(j) & §1681(r).

The best part about DNC violations is that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that damages under this section may be stacked on top of the TCPA 227(b) section covering “calls to cell phones.” This means that the consumer can get up to $3000.00 per call for violations of the cell phone prohibitions and the DNC provisions. Charvat v NMP, LLC, 656 F. 3d 440 (6th Cir. 2011).

Fourth Circuit Holds TCPA Disclosure Requirements Constitutional

TCPA Case Law under Federal Deception Law

On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the TCPA allows a consumer to revoke any prior express consent previously provided. The Third Circuit also held that there is no temporal limit to this right, that is, a consumer can revoke his or her consent at any time.

Consent to be called, did you give it? Can it be passed on to another Debt Collector without your consent?

Manually Dialed Calls to Mobile Phone Held to Violate TCPA Robo-calls no longer required to have a cause of action under the TCPA.

Implied Consent does not equal Express Concent Black’s Law Dictionary defines “express consent” as “[c]onsent that is clearly and unmistakably stated.” Black’s Law Dictionary 346 (9th ed. 2004). It also defines “express” as “[c]learly and unmistakably communicated; directly stated.” Id. at 661. By contrast, “implied consent” is defined as “[c]onsent inferred from one’s conduct rather than from one’s direct expression,” or “[c]onsent imputed as a result of circumstances that arise, such as when a surgeon removing a gall bladder discovers and removes colon cancer.” Id. at 346.

MISC Case Law,
SCOTUS Where known

Bridge v. Ocwen 6th Circuit When is a creditor not a creditor, but a debt collector instead.

     Oliver v. Ocwen 9th Circuit More - Creditor becomes a Debt Collector.

     Yarney v. Ocwen 4th Circuit More - Creditor becomes a Debt Collector.

     Beaton v. JP Morgan 9th Circuit More - Creditor becomes a Debt Collector.

Klem v. Wamu Washington State Supreme wonders if Non-Judicial Foreclosure violates Due Process.

Need Help? Get it here!

Void Judgment Details

     22 Reasons Simply Stated

     Restated with evidence cited

Meet "Richard Cornforth"

Sue Debt Collectors Instead

     Support Docs for Suing Debt Collectors

     Unfair and Deceptive Practices

          Case Law for Suing Debt Collectors

     Recorded Calls from "just Dave"

Research Links, Videos, Court Filings & Confessions


Note worthy court actions and
actions within the debt collection industry.

Interested in knowing more?
Join our mailing list and keep up to date
on what's happening with debt collections.


Isn't time for Debt Collectors to pay you to go away
instead of you paying them?!
Make Debt Collectors pay when they break the rules!

freeNclear.net What Lies in Your Debt

"Behind the mask that is Liberism
Is the face that is Fascism"

JRS - 2013

© Copyright 2000-Present


Contact us

Site Map