FDCPA Case Wins for Collectors Continue

In Reyes v. NAR, Inc. and Olson Associates a Utah District Court dismissed a consumer’s claim that collectors violated FDCPA by seeking to recover collection fees in a related state court litigation, Citing the Petition Clause. Also dismissing the consumer’s claim that a proposed confession of judgment violated the FDCPA.

In Klein v. Foster & Garbus, LLP a New York District Court rejects that a least sophisticated consumer is left with "no reasonable basis to determine whether interest is accruing on the account." The court found “that the following "safe harbor" language satisfies "a debt collector's duty to state the amount of debt in cases where the amount varies from day to day":

As of the date of this letter, you owe $____ [the exact amount due]. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection. For further information, write the undersigned or call 1-800-[phone number].

To read the case click here:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20210630947 

To read the Reyes case click here:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/1:2020cv00007/118549/34/

Reyes v. NAR Inc et al, No. 1:2020cv00007 - Document 34 (D. Utah 2021) :: Justia