Common Violations of 1692e

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

Common Violations of 1692e

Post by David A. Szwak »

Other common violations of this section are the false representation of the character, amount or legal status of the debt [15 U.S.C. 1692e(2); Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp., 233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000); Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc., 912 F.Supp. 1354 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Cal. 1995); Strange v. Wexler, 796 F.Supp. 1117 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. 1992).], the representation or implication that nonpayment will result in arrest, imprisonment, seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of the consumer's property [15 U.S.C. 1692e(4); Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6003 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 2002); Schimmel v. Slaughter, 975 F.Supp. 1357 (U.S.D.C. M.D.Ga. 1997); Ditty v. CheckRite, Ltd., 973 F.Supp. 1320 (U.S.D.C. Utah 1997); United States v. Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 667 F.Supp. 370 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Tex. 1986), aff'd per curiam, 823 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1987).], the simulation of legal process [15 U.S.C. 1692e(13); Finch v. Silverstein, 1996 WestLaw 467251 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. 1996).], use of any name other than the true name of the debt collector [15 U.S.C. 1692e(14). Cox Medical Center v. Huntsman, 408 F.3d 989(8th Cir. 2005); Peter v. GC Services L.P., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21716 (5th Cir. 2002) (use of U.S. Department of Education as address on collector's envelope violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(14)).], the use of names or statements which falsely suggest affiliation with government agencies [15 U.S.C. 1692e(9); Gammon v. GC Services L.P., supra, 27 F.3d 1254 (7th Cir. 1994) (debt collector stated in collection letter that it had designed collection systems used by federal and state tax collection authorities; Court of Appeals characterized the statement as having no conceivable purpose other than to convey the impression that the tax collection systems could in some manner be used in debt collection); Adams v. First Federal Credit Control, Inc., 1992 WestLaw 131121 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ohio 1992) (use of the word "federal" and seal emblem improperly suggested affiliation with federal government). The FDCPA prohibits "The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof...." (1692e(1)) and "The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval..." (1692e(9)).], and the representation that the debt collector is part of a credit reporting agency when it is not. 15 U.S.C. 1692e(16); Mckenzie v. E.A. Uffman & Associates, Inc., 119 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 1997); Trull v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 961 F.Supp. 1199 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. 1997). Contra, Byes v. Credit Bureau Enterprises, 1996 WestLaw 99360 (U.S.D.C. E.D. La. 1996) (use of the name Credit Bureau Enterprises did not violate 15 U.S.C. 1692e(16)). The Eighth Circuit has held that references to civil penalty, attorneys fees, and overstated interest calculations in collection letters violated the FDCPA because the statements were misleading representations of state law. Duffy v. Landberg, 215 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2000); Picht v. Jon R. Hawks, 236 F.3d 446 (8th Cir. 2001) However, the FDCPA "was not meant to convert every violation of a state debt collection law into a federal violation." Carlson v. First Revenue Assurance, 359 F.3d 1015, 1018 (8th Cir. 2004) (failure to license drop box as required by state law was not a violation). Filing suit on a debt known to be time-barred has been held to violate the FDCPA. Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F.Supp. 1480 (U.S.D.C. M.D. Ala. 1987). â€
Post Reply

Return to “Other False or Misleading Misrepresentations”