It is currently Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:43 am

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:33 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
1. Catencamp v. Cendant Timeshare Resort Group-Consumer Finance, Inc.,
471 F.3d 780, C.A.7 (Wis.), December 14, 2006 (NO. 06-2030)

...however, either sophistication or guesswork. Courts must analyze debt-collection communications from the perspective of unsophisticated recipients. See Gammon v. GC Services Limited Partnership, 27 F.3d 1254 (7th Cir.1994) The effect of a potentially misleading acronym is the subject of...


2. Gully v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC,
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 3486815, N.D.Ill., December 01, 2006 (NO. 04 C 6849)

...claim is misleading or deceptive, a court evaluates FDCPA claims from the perspective of an “unsophisticated debtor.â€

David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
Fax 318-221-6555

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group