Telemarketer and Debt Collector Statistics

According to the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 234,520 individuals employed in the telemarketing industry in the United States.  These individuals earn an average annual salary of $28,500.  Over half of these telemarketers work in call centers.

Florida has the most telemarketers (26,940) followed by Texas (24,010), Ohio (18,460), California (16,380), and Arizona (11,330).

There are 346,960 individuals employed as debt collectors according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their median pay is $35,540 per year.  Employment projections show that this area will experience a 15% growth between 2012 and 2022, which is faster than the overall national average.

California has the most debt collectors (38,660) followed by Texas (38,010), Florida (22,740), New York (21,360), and Ohio (15,920).

So with over 600,000 people engaged in either telemarketing or debt collection, is it any wonder why our dinner is interrupted on a regular basis?

Thankfully Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) which prohibits telemarketer or debt collector calls from automated telephone equipment to your cell phone or any service for which you are charged for the call.  It also prohibits voicemails using artificial or prerecorded messages.  And, even better, it prohibits calls to any phone on the "Do Not Call Registry."

As punishment for violating the TCPA consumers may receive $500 per call, and if a court finds the calls are willful violations, up to $1500 per call.  This statute is a powerful tool to address a national epidemic.  

If you have been a victim of telemarketer or debt collector calls, contact a knowledgeable consumer law attorney to determine if you are entitled to damages for violation of the TCPA.

www.henry-legal.com

866-279-9721

New Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Defense Tactic

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") was enacted to protect consumers from the nagging calls from telemarketers and debt collectors.  The Act provided that suit could be filed in any state court of competent jurisdiction.  On January 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC held that federal courts could also have jurisdiction over TCPA cases.

Up until the Mims decision, the majority of circuits held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over TCPA cases.  And attorneys for debt collectors and telemarketers argued that TCPA cases filed in federal court must be dismissed.  Prior to Mims debt collectors and telemarketers removed cases based only on diversity (if the amount in controversy met the threshold) or if the case was filed as a class action and met the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act.

Now attorneys for debt collectors and telemarketers are removing TCPA cases filed in state court to federal court as a defense tactic.  State courts generally have different pleading requirements than federal courts.  For instance, most state courts require a "barebones" complaint that puts the defendant on notice of the allegations that it will have to defend.  But federal courts apply a heightened standard.  

Two major decisions changed the pleading standard.  In Bell Atlantic v. Twombly in 2007 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal in 2009, the Supreme Court announced a new pleading standard that shook the foundations of federal litigation. The decisions allow district court judges to dismiss a complaint if it does not set out a “plausible” claim—a departure from the rule established in the 1957 case Conley v. Gibson that a court cannot dismiss a complaint unless it is apparent that the plaintiff could prove “no set of facts” that would entitle him to relief.  In short, these decisions empowered district court judges to weigh whether sufficient facts have been pled to support the allegations in the complaint.  And if the judge finds the facts pled insufficient to support the allegations, the complaint can be dismissed.

Defense counsel for debt collectors and telemarketers are now using the combination of federal jurisdiction and its heightened pleading requirement to remove state court TCPA complaints to federal court and then to move to dismiss the complaint because it did not meet the federal pleading standard.  These complaints met the state court pleading requirements where they were filed, but may or may not meet the federal standard.  This is a type of forum shopping that the federal courts should reject.

But, not to be outdone, we have begun addressing the motions to dismiss and simultaneously filing an amended complaint that meets the heightened pleading standard.  At some point we hope to find a federal judge who will see the forum shopping and who will send the case back to state court.  But that hasn't happened yet.

Stay tuned.

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Caution

Beware if you have taken a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and did not reaffirm your mortgage and/or second mortgage.  We have found that may times, lenders fail to report that the mortgage account has been closed. In fact, I have just such a case where the bank has failed to change the reporting of the mortgage even though it did change the reporting of the second mortgage of my client who had taken a Chapter 7 and did not reaffirm the debt on the house.

The lesson here is to check your credit report after taking a Chapter 7 to ensure that those lines on your report are accurate.  This is critical to your rebuilding your credit after bankruptcy.

www.henry-legal.com

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

If You Sue Them... They May Stop

Many debt collectors subscribe to a service that tracks FDCPA, FCRA, TCPA, and TILA litigation. According to one of these services, they can provide debt collectors with a frequent litigant report, a report of people who have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts against debt collectors.  The idea is that if a debtor, whose debt was $1000 for example and whose debt the debt collector paid approximately $33, filed suit against a debt collector previously, then that debtor would be more likely to sue again.  Therefore, the debt collector may likely decide not to pursue the debtor to reduce the risk of being sued and to save litigation costs. 

One service also provides debt collectors with telephone numbers associated with FDCPA, FCRA, TCPA, and TILA litigants so that these numbers can be removed from the debt collectors' data bases. 

Why would debt collectors want this information?  According to Webrecon 1129 FDCPA lawsuits, 298 FCRA lawsuits, and 249 TCPA lawsuits were filed in the month of June 2015.  Year-to-date 5823 FDCPA lawsuits have been filed, 1514 FCRA lawsuits have been filed, and 1318 TCPA lawsuits have been filed.

What does this mean for consumers?  The debt collection industry is in the business of making money, not fighting litigation.  Thus, if a consumer takes the debt collector on in court, it may well be that other debt collectors may choose not to pursue the consumer.

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

FCC Enacts New Telephone Consumer Protection Act Rule

 In June the Federal Communication Commission enacted new rules based on 21 separate petitions for consideration.  The new rules provide:

•           Telephone service providers can offer robocall blocking technologies to consumers. 


•           Consumers now have the right to revoke their consent to receive calls and text messages sent from autodialers in any reasonable way at any time. 


•           To prevent consent for unwanted calls from a previous subscriber following a reassigned number, callers will be required to stop calling reassigned wireless and wired telephone numbers after a single call. 


•           The TCPA prohibits the use of automatic telephone dialing systems to call wireless phones and to leave prerecorded telemarketing messages on landlines without consent. “Automatic telephone dialing system” is defined as “equipment which has the capacity to (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” The new rule clarifies this definition includes machines with a future capacity to dial randomly, sequentially and even from a list loaded into the dialer. Human intervention — like touch screen dialing button — is not sufficient to overcome ATDS status. 


•           Consent survives when a consumer ports his number from a landline to a wireless phone.


The new rule reaffirms many of the existing FCC and court interpretations of the TCPA:

•           Text messages are calls.


•           Consent must come from the called party, not the intended recipient of the call.


•           The FTC will continue to administer the National Do-Not-Call Registry to prevent unwanted telemarketing calls.


•           Wireless and home phone subscribers can continue to prevent telemarketing robocalls made without prior written consent.


•           Autodialed and prerecorded telemarketing and information calls and text messages to mobile phones will still require prior consent.


•          Political calls will still be subject to restrictions on prerecorded, artificial voice, and autodialed calls to wireless phones, but will continue to not be subject to the National Do-Not-Call Registry because they do not contain telephone solicitations.


•           Consumers will still have a private right of action for violations of the TCPA along with statutory penalties.


These new rules will significantly restrict business’s use of autodialing technologies. Of course, enforcement will be the key to carrying out their effect.

 

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Student Loan Debt and Bankruptcy

A huge amount of the debt Americans carry is from student loans.  That debt today totals a staggering $1.2 trillion!  Often people find that paying back their student loan debt is an impediment to their being able to provide minimal necessities for themselves and their dependents.  Bankruptcy may be an option, but only in limited circumstances.

In order to have student loans discharged in bankruptcy, the debtor must show that it would be an undue hardship to be required to pay them.  Courts will apply various tests to determine if an undue hardship exists.  Regardless of the test applied, most courts are hesitant to discharge student loans, but if the debtor has very low income or incurred student loans from a for-profit school, the odds are better that a discharge will be granted.

One of the tests courts apply is the Brunner test.  In order to discharge student loans under the Brunner test, the debtor must meet 3 criteria:

1. Poverty.  Based upon current income and expenses, the debtor cannot provide a minimum standard of living for himself and his dependents.
2. Persistence.  The debtor's current financial circumstances will likely continue into the future for a significant portion of the student loan repayment period.
3. Good Faith.  The debtor has made a good faith effort to repay his student loans.

Again, if and only if the debtor meets all 3 criteria will the court consider a discharge under this test.

Some courts use a totality of the circumstances test to determine if student loans may be discharged.  In this test the court will look at all relevant factors to determine if an undue hardship exists.

Courts vary on this issue of whether a debtor may discharge only a portion of his student loan debt.  Many view this proposition as an all or nothing situation, i.e., the debtor will be able to discharge all of his student loan debt, or he will be able to discharge none of it.

There is a formal procedure that must be followed in order to discharge student loan debt called a Complaint to Determine Dischargeability.  The burden of proof is on the debtor to show undue hardship.

A good bankruptcy attorney will be able to help with the ins and outs of working through which tests, etc., apply in a particular jurisdiction.

www.debt-relief-law.com

Eight Things Debt Collectors Won't Tell You

Debt collectors call often and many times threaten debtors in an attempt to get them to pay a debt.  However, many of their tactics are nothing more than a smoke screen.  Below, I discuss 8 things debt collectors won't tell you.

1.  Many of Their Threats Are Just Words

"I am going to inform the creditor that you have refused to pay."  I think the creditor may have figured that out since it has referred or sold your account to a debt collector.

"I will have the sherriff arrest you."  This is not going to happen.

They will set deadlines for your payment as a threat to get you to pay.  You can bet they would take your money after the deadline.

2.  They Have to Stop Calling You at Work If You Tell Them To

If you tell a debt collector to stop calling you at work, the FDCPA requires that the calls stop.  Of course, the debt collector wants to keep calling at work because of the potential embarrassment factor.

3.  They Can't Talk to Others About Your Debt

Debt collectors can't talk to your neightbors, your boss, or any other people other than a co-signer, your spouse, or your attorney.  Of course they want you to believe that your neighbors of boss would find out about the debt in hopes you would pay to prevent them from finding out.

4.  Most Debt Collectors Have Quotas

Since they have quotas, it might be better to hold them off for a while.  It could work to get them to accept less money later in the month.

5.  You Can't Be Sued on Your Debt

Many times debt collectors are attempting to collect old debt that is outside the staute of limitations, and as result, they can't sue you to collect the debt.

6.  The Worst Thing They Can Do Is File Suit

Debt collectors won't tell you that the worst thing they can do to you is file a civil suit?  Why?  Because they have to pay attorneys, filing fees, and wait to be paid until the litigation concludes.  And, they also don't want to risk having counterclaims filed against them for violating the FDCPA.

7.  Paying Them Won't Help Your Credit Score

Debt collectors often tell debtors that they will update their credit report if they pay off the debt.  The fact is that the credit report will keep the negative information associated with the account for six years and six months from the date the debtor stopped paying.

8.  You Likely Won't Have to Pay a Dead Relative's Debt

You are not responsible for your relative's debt unless you were a co-signer or your spouse died in a community property state.  The debt collector may file a claim against the estate of the deceased if the deceased left one.  Beware when a debt collector calls to attempt to collect a debt of a dead relative.

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Overshadowing FDCPA Notice Requirement Results in Class Certification

In Roundtree v. Bush Ross, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted class certification based in part on a claim by the Plaintiff that the 30-day validation notice provided by a law firm representing a condo association "overshadowed" the notice by its terms.  The notice at issue stated:

Unless the entire sum is paid within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter, we shall proceed with appropriate actions to protect the Association's interests, including, but not limited to the filing of a claim of lien and foreclosure thereon. If a claim of lien is filed against your unit to collect the amounts stated hereinabove, you will be responsible for the cost of recording the lien ($18.50), a title search ($25.00), and certified mail ($5.00 per unit owner per address), plus additional attorney's fees of approximately $200.00.

Roundtree argued that the demand for payment within 30 days would lead the least sophisticated consumer to waive her rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b), which provides, "Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor."  The court agreed that such language as used by Bush Ross could violated section 1692g(b).

We have encountered numerous communications from debt collectors that overshadow the 30-day notice requirement.  Initial communications that demand payment or offer a settlement before the expiration of the 30 days within which a consumer may request validation most likely violate section 1692g(b) by overshadowing the right to request validation within 30 days of the communication.

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Robocalls--Stopping An American Pandemic

      America is in the midst of a pandemic. This pandemic is the flood of robocalls Americans receive on a daily basis. According to the FTC, it receives over 200,000 complaints per month about robocalls.

     What are robocalls? The FTC defines “robocalls” as follows:

Robocalls are unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls to landline home telephones, and all autodialed or prerecorded calls or text messages to wireless numbers, emergency numbers, and patient rooms at health care facilities.

     So, if you get a call to your home phone that is a prerecorded message from a telemarketer, the call violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). And, if you get an autodialed call, prerecorded call, or text from a telemarketer on your cell phone the call or text violates the TCPA. And, federal courts have now expanded the coverage of the TCPA to also apply to debt collectors.

Because of modern telephone technology that utilizes the Internet robocalls can be made from anywhere in the world. In addition, modern technology also allows robocallers to “spoof” their number on caller id by giving false numbers. This makes catching and punishing robocallers much more difficult. And, because they are almost beyond the law, many robocalls are scams meant to separate people from their money.

     For instance, many offshore casinos text offers to cell phones. Or, scammers call and threaten people with jail time for a debt that in most instances the person doesn’t owe.

What to do? First, get your number registered on the national do not call registry. Although many of scammers could care less and will violate the do not call prohibition, other legitimate telemarketers will obey the prohibition. Second, do not answer your phone if you don’t recognize the number. Many times scammers will leave a voicemail, and on occasion, this can be used as proof against them. However, if you do answer a robocall, hang up. Do not press any number to get removed from their list. Third, file a complaint with the FTC at donotcall.gov. Fourth, if you have gotten a number of these robocalls, contact a consumer law attorney. The TCPA provides that a victim of a robocall may receive $500 per call in damages from the robocaller, and up to $1500 in damages if the violation is willful. Fifth, block the number. This may help somewhat, but do not be surprised to get another call from the same offender using a different number. Sixth, consider using a free robocall blocking service such as Nomorobo.

     This pandemic can be brought under control if consumers are educated about what they can do in reaction to this constant annoyance. However, it will not be easy or automatic.

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Have You Been Sued by a Debt Collector?

If you have been sued by a debt collector in Tennessee or Kentucky, you can fight back.  We have successfully defended and brought counterclaims against Midland Funding, Midland Credit Management, LVNV Funding, CACH, Portfolio Recovery, and many other debt collectors.

There are powerful federal statutes that we can use to your advantage.  These include the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

In addition, both Tennessee and Kentucky have very effective consumer protection acts, which can be used to fight off debt collectors.  And, in Tennessee, debt collectors have to be licensed before they can lawfully attempt to collect a debt.

Many debt collectors violate the law when they attempt to collect debts.  The most common violations include:

• Adding unlawful interest and fees to debt they have purchased
• Calling incessantly
• Calling before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time
• Calling at work after being notified that your employer does not allow such calls
• Directly contacting you after you have informed the debt collector you have a lawyer
• Threatening criminal charges
• Being overly rude and abusive on the telephone
• Suing on debt that is outside the statute of limitations
• Using recorded (robo) calls to your cell phone
• Falsely reporting the size of your debt to credit bureaus
• Failing to conduct a thorough investigation when you dispute a debt with a credit bureau

If you have been the victim any of these or anything else you think may be a violation of law give us a call at 866-279-9721 or visit our web site at www.debt-relief-law.com.  We never charge a fee for a consultation.  Learn what your rights and options are.  Don't just give up and give in.

     www.debt-relief-law.com

Filing Proof of Claim on Time Barred Debt in Bankruptcy Case Violates FDCPA

In Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that filing a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case on debt that was outside the statute of limitations may violate the FDCPA.  This holding has not been adopted by all circuits, but it is, in my opinion, the correct application of the law.  Logic dictates that if a debt collector could not sue on a time barred debt, it should not be able to collect on the debt in a Chapter 13 case.

The Seventh Circuit in reviewing the issue found that the Bankruptcy Code and FDCPA could both be applied, and that neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the FDCPA trumps the other.  See Randoph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2004).  A recent ruling in the Southern District of Indiana held that the debt collector's motion to dismiss should be overruled and the debtor's FDCPA claim could go forward where the debt collector had filed a proof of claim on a time barred debt.  Patrict v. Quantum3 Funding, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00545-TWP (Dist. Ct. S.D. Indiana 2015).  But the court in In re Poteet held just the opposite.  In re Poteet, No. 08-14936, Adv. No. 11-1081 (E.D. TN. 2011).

It will be interesting to see how the law develops on this issue.  You can bet there will be more FDCPA claims filed against debt collectors who file proofs of claim in bankruptcy cases.

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Offer to "Settle" Time Barred Debt Violates FDCPA

In the case of Buchanan v. Northland Group, Inc., No. 13-2523 (6th Cir., Jan. 13, 2015) the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court ruling that an offer to "settle" a debt outside the statute of limitations is not a threat to sue in violation of the FDCPA.  The Sixth Circuit held that such language in the absence of informing the debtor that she can't be sued on the debt violated the statutory ban on threatening to take legal action that cannot be taken.

The Court also examined the failure to inform a debtor that making a single payment could restart the statute of limitations and actually place the debtor in a worse position than if she had made no payment at all.  This practice coupled with the failure to inform the debtor that the debt could not be collected in court were potentially misleading in violation of the FDCPA.

There is a split among the circuits on this issue.  The Third and Eighth Circuits have held that dunning letters like the one at issue in Buchanan do not violate the FDCPA.  This issue may well make its way to the Supreme Court at some point, but for now, in the Sixth Circuit debt collectors that seek to settle time barred debt without informing the debtor that the debt cannot be collected in court because it is beyond the statute of limitations and that a partial payment may restart the statute of limitations violate the FDCPA.

The next question is whether the same logic applies to attempts to settle debts via telephone and the impact on the follow up validation letter if the initial attempt is via telephone.  Stay tuned.

debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Tennesseans Beware

I just took on a client from Tennessee who was sued on a time barred debt.  Debt collectors are suing on debt outside the six year statute of limitations in Tennessee in what seems like epidemic proportions.

 

Why?  In Tennessee the General Sessions Court has jurisdiction over civil cases with a value of less than $25,000.  Debt collectors merely issue summons with a less than skeleton allegation that the victim owes the debt, the amount of the debt, and requested interest.  The victim then receives the summons with a date to appear in court.  The debt collector sits back and waits, hoping the victim won't show up on the court date, and if the victim doesn't show, the court enters a default judgment for everything the debt collector has asked for.

 

In addition, in Tennessee a debt collector can "prove" it owns the debt with an affidavit.  However, under a new change in the evidentiary rules, many of these affidavits are short of adequate.

 

If you are sued in Tennessee on a debt on which you last made a payment over 6 years ago, call a lawyer who practices consumer law.  Suing on a time barred debt is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  You can get $1000 in damages, and the debt collector will have to pay your legal fees.

 

 

www.debt-relief-law.com



866-279-9721

Struggling with Student Loan Debt?

If you are struggling with student loan debt, you're not alone.  In 2014 the Government Accountability Office said that about $94 billion — more than 11% of the federal student loan volume in repayment — was in default.  The government has turned much of this defaulted debt over to debt collectors.  Because they are working for the government, many of these debt collectors feel like they are beyond the reach of the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) and the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act).  They are not.

These debt collectors often engage in one or more of the following unlawful practices:

1. Calling at unreasonable times and calling over and over.
2. Allocating payments in a way to maximize late fees.
3. Inflating minimum payments.
4. Charging late fees during the grace period.

If you have been victimized by a debt collector regarding a student loan debt, contact a consumer law attorney and fight back.

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Debt Collectors' Dirty Little Secret

Debt collectors love aged debt.  No, really, they do.  Why?  Because they can buy the debt for about 1% of its face value.  Think about the potential to make 99 times your investment!  Of course, they love aged debt.

Aged debt, or debt that is outside the statute of limitations, can still be collected.  However, the statute of limitations is a complete bar to suit, should a debtor be sued on aged debt.  But, debt collectors buy large tranches of old debt and call, cajole, and threaten debtors in an effort to collect. These debt collectors collect all they can in a tranche, then sell the remaining debt to another debt collector who repeats the cycle.  This explains why debtors often receive calls from more than one debt collector on an old debt.

Debt collectors are most likely to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because of the age of the debt and the potential payoff.  As one debt collector put it when explaining why he had an ex-convict to run his collections: "Boy Scouts just don't get the job done."

Here are some do's and don'ts if you receive a collection call on an aged debt:

1. Don't pay the debt;
2. Don't sign any repayment agreement;
3. Get the collector's address;
4. Write to the collector and explicitly tell the collector to stop contacting you;
5. Document each and every call the collector makes to you, particularly to a cell phone, for the purpose of suing the collector for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act;
6. Keep all paper communications from the debt collector; and 
7. Make contemporaneous notes of all call contents.

Remember, these folks are looking to make a huge profit at your expense.

www.debt-relief-law.com

866-279-9721

Voicemail Heard by Third Party Violates FDCPA

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Thompson v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., No. H–12–922, 2013 WL 3973976 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2013) held that where a debt collector left a voicemail heard by a debtor's mother, it had violated the FDCPA.

The debt collector left a message at the consumer’s mother’s residence which disclosed the existence of a debt. The message stated:

This message is for [consumer’s name]. If I’ve reached the wrong number please call me back at 866–923–2995 [unintelligible] the number and then disconnect now. By continuing to listen to this message you acknowledge you are [consumer’s name]. This message contains private information. This is [collection agency’s name]. This is an attempt to collect a debt, any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Please return my call to 866–923–2995. It’s very important to hear back from you. Thank you.

The consumer's mother eventually heard the message. The consumer sued, claiming the message violated § 805(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because the message disclosed the existence of a debt to a third party. The collection agency countered that the voice mail message left at the consumer’s mother’s telephone number was not a prohibited third-party communication, noting that the consumer gave her mother’s telephone number and address to the collection agency as her contact information.  

The court, citing numerous cases, concluded the debt collector’s voice message was similar to other messages that were found to be communications under the FDCPA. Next, the court found that the consumer was not required to show that the debt collector intended to disclose her debt to a third party in order to assert a claim under § 805(b). The court stated that while some sections of the FDCPA do require a showing of intent (e.g., § 806(5)), there was no such requirement to show intent under § 805(b). The court also stated the FDCPA’ s legislative history further supports the notion that the collector may be liable for leaving a voice mail message at the consumer’s mother’s telephone number, regardless of intent. Specifically, the court noted that Congress adopted several provisions to limit specific methods of communication that were especially likely to reveal the existence of a debt (e.g., postcard, language on envelopes), and that these provisions applied without regard to a debt collector’s intent. The court also noted other courts had rejected the notion that debt collectors were entitled to leave messages for consumers. Citing other cases, the court stated “[the debt collector] could have reduced the risk that its voicemail would be heard by a third party by not leaving a message and instead calling again later.” Further, the court stated that other courts have consistently held that debt collectors may be liable for violations under § 805(b) by leaving voice mail messages that were inadvertently heard by a third party.

Based on this analysis, the court granted the consumer’s motion for summary judgment in part, finding the message was actionable under § 805(b) of the FDCPA. A factual dispute remained as to whether the debt at issue was a “consumer debt” covered by the FDCPA.

www.debt-relief-law.com

(502) 245-9100 (866) 279-9721

Debt Collectors Cannot Have You Arrested

There is a plague of debt collectors posing as law enforcement or threatening criminal charges in an effort to squeeze money out of folks all over America.  One of these collected over $4 million from 2009 through 2014 from over 6,000 victims across the United States. Below is an example:

CASE  FILE NUMBER: AACS#00000129870/A

LOAN INFORMATION

DUE AMOUNT: $ 946.74

LOAN COMPANY - AACS LEGAL GROUP

Regarding your account with Advance America Cash Services.

You have chosen to ignore all our efforts to contact you in order to resolve the debt with Advance America Cash Services.

At this point you have made your intentions clear & left no choice to us.

Therefore, the Lender is filing three charges against you:

(1) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL BANKING REGULATION
(2) COLLATERAL CHECK FRAUD
(3) THEFT BY DECEPTION

Now, this means few things for you.

 If you are under any state probation or payroll we need you to inform your superior or manager regarding your past & also about the consequences once the case has been downloaded and executed against your Name & SSN.

Further, if we do not hear from you within next 48 hours of the date on this E-mail, we will be compelled to seek legal representation from our in-house attorney. We reserve the right to commence litigation for intent to commit wire fraud under the pretense of refusing to repay a debt committed to, by use of the internet.

In addition we reserve the right to seek recovery for the balance due, as well as legal fees & any court cost incurred.

WE HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS RESERVED TO INFORM TO CREDIT BUREAU, FBI, FTC, YOUR EMPLOYER AND BANK ABOUT FRAUD.

And once you found guilty in the court house then you have to bear the entire cost for this lawsuit $3896.47 along with the loan amount, attorney's fees, and the interest charges.

You have the right to hire an attorney. If you don't have one or if you can't afford then one will be appointed to you.

We believe that this was not your intent and these steps are unnecessary. We merely require you to contact our recovery asset location department.

IF YOU WANT TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER ; DO CONTACT US THRU EMAIL OR CALL US ON +1- 3478714990

AACS LEGAL GROUP
LEGAL GROUP OF ATTORNEYS

Do not pay these people!  Do not respond to them!  We are trying to locate them so that we can file suit against them. Stay tuned for further developments.

866-279-9721

www.debt-relief-law.com

Offices in Louisville, Kentucky and Knoxville, Tennessee