Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Real Property, Financial Services, & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending December 20, 2019
December 20, 2019

Real Property Update

  • None of interest.

Financial Services Update

  • FDCPA / Statute of Limitations Disclosure: A debt collection letter's statute of limitations disclosure would not mislead the least sophisticated debtor into thinking that a debt collector could use legal means to collect time-barred debt - Stimpson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 18-35833 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019) (affirming summary judgment in favor of creditor)
  • FDCPA / Statute of Limitations Disclosure: A debt collection letter's failure to warn a consumer that partial payment on time-barred debt could potentially revive the statute of limitations does not mislead or deceive the least sophisticated debtor - Stimpson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 18-35833 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019) (affirming summary judgment in favor of creditor)
  • FDCPA / Section 1692g(b): Plaintiff presented no evidence that she notified debt collector that the debt was disputed within 30-day period - Ortiz v. Enhanced Recovery Co., No. 2:17-cv-0607 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019) (recommending summary judgment for defendant)
  • FCRA / Section 1681s-2(b): Noting that notice of a dispute received directly from a consumer does not trigger furnishers' duties under section 1681s-2(b) - Ortiz v. Enhanced Recovery Co., No. 2:17-cv-0607 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019) (recommending summary judgment for defendant)
  • FDCPA / Section 1692g(a): Despite debt collection letter's omission of the phrase "or any portion thereof" when informing the plaintiff that she had the right to dispute the alleged debt, the least sophisticated consumer would understand that if she believed she did not owe the full amount claimed, she was disputing the debt - Chaperon v. Sontag & Hyman, P.C., No. 0:19-cv-08663 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2019) (dismissing complaint with prejudice)

Title Insurance Update

  • None of interest.
Related Practices
Consumer Finance
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.