15 USC 1692g: Nichols v. Byrd

This folder examine when and how an attorney takes on the role of a debt collector and will be deemed a "debt collector" under the FDCPA and be subjected to its provisions.
Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

15 USC 1692g: Nichols v. Byrd

Post by David A. Szwak »

First, we find that Defendant is a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA, and thus must adhere to the act's requirements. The FDCPA "applies to attorneys who 'regularly' engage in consumer-debt-collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation." Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 299, 115 S.Ct. 1489, 131 L.Ed.2d 395 (1995). Defendant states in his affidavit that he is "on retainer for and ha[s] worked with CSN on many prior occasions to initiate litigation on its behalf in the legitimate collection of its assigned debts." Thus, Defendant is a debt collector bound by the requirements of § 1692g.

Nichols v. Byrd
--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2006 WL 1726898
D.Nev.,2006.
Jun 13, 2006
Post Reply

Return to “Attorneys: Are They Debt Collectors?”