Section 1692e[11] - Part 2

Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Section 1692e[11] - Part 2

Post by David A. Szwak »

Before the amendment the debt collection warning was required in all communications. Five appellate courts had held that the debt collection warning must be included in all communications. Tolentino v. Friedman, 46 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 1995); Dutton v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 5 F.3d 649 (3d Cir. 1993); Carroll v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 961 F.2d 459, 461 (4th Cir. 1992); Frey v. Gangwish, supra, 970 F.2d 1516 (6th Cir. 1992); Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, Inc., 886 F.2d 22, 26-27 (2d Cir. 1989). Other decisions had held the warning must be included in the initial communication. Emanuel v. American Credit Exchange, 870 F.2d 805 (2d Cir. 1989); Hulshizer v. Global Credit Services, Inc., 728 F.2d 1037 (8th Cir. 1984). An early decision from the Ninth Circuit held that this warning was not required in "follow up letters." Pressley v. Capital & Collection Services, Inc., 760 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1985).

In Dikeman v. National Educators, Inc., 81 F.3d 949 (10th Cir. 1996), the Tenth Circuit held that the debt collection warning need not be given in a communication with the consumer’s attorney.
Post Reply

Return to “Mini-Miranda Warning/Notice Mandated By the FDCPA”