UDAAP Council Weekly UDAAP Standards Report - 11/19/2014

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.

Explore Firm Details

Every week, courts around the United States issue decisions addressing aspects of civil UDAAP claims.

United States Consumer Protection

Every week, courts around the United States issue decisions addressing aspects of civil UDAAP claims.

In an effort to illuminate the UDAAP standards, below is a sampling of some of this week's UDAAP decisions on the meaning of unfair, deceptive, and abusive.

Deceptive

A debt collector that failed to identify itself in voice messages left for the plaintiff violated Section 1692e(11) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, even though the plaintiff allegedly was aware that the calls were from a debt collector. Erez v. Steur, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
A debtor stated a claim under Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when she alleged that a debt collector sent her letters indicating that she should send payments by mail when the collector was already debiting payments form her account, since such statements could confuse consumers. Coover v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
A debtor was entitled to a judgment under Sections 1692c, 1692e and 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where she alleged a debt collector contacted her employer and told it about her debt, threatened to serve her at work despite the fact that it had not filed a lawsuit against her, and failed to provide verification of her debt upon request. Lehr v. Secure Capital Management, Inc., United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
A borrower stated a claim for deceptive practices under the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act based on her mortgage lender's refusal to stop a foreclosure while her loan modification application was pending, where she alleged that the lender initially told her she was in a loan modification program and then later represented she was not. Sanchez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Note that this Weekly UDAAP Standards Report serves to highlight only some of the many weekly developments in the law around these standards.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.