Congratulations to our Smith Debnam lawyers named in the 26th Edition of Best Lawyers® in America. https://t.co/KborMrUOQS
Attorney Max Rodden has seen it all over the course of his career as a family law attorney, especially when it come… https://t.co/We530jK8g4
Eleven Smith Debnam Lawyers Named in 2020 Best Lawyers® List - Smith Debnam https://t.co/LJJWxZDBiC https://t.co/WubLNEefMk
A Missouri district court has refused to grant partial summary judgment in favor of a consumer who asserted violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692e(11). In Dodd v. Delta Outsource Group, the consumer, who was employed as a collector by another debt collector, received two calls from the collection agency while at work. A week later, the consumer filed suit asserting violations of the FDCPA, including violations of section 1692e(11), contending that the collector failed to disclose the communications were from a debt collector. In support of his motion for partial summary judgment, the consumer submitted recordings of both calls.
Section 1692e(11) provides that:
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt…[including]…The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector…
In opposition to the motion, the debt collector asserted that: [a] the consumer admitted in his deposition testimony that he knew Delta Outsource Group was a debt collector; and [b] it could not be held liable for its failure to disclose when the consumer interrupted the collector in both calls, preventing him from making the disclosure.” The court denied summary judgment agreeing with the debt collector that a question of fact remains as to whether the debt collector violated the FDCPA. In doing so, the court cited with favor a 2015 Utah district court decision where the court held that “the FDCPA does not entitle a plaintiff “to disrupt a collection call, prevent the debt collector from making its required identifications and disclosures, end the call, and through his own actions, create a violation of the FDCPA on the part of the debt collector.” Dodd v. Delta Outsource Group, C.A. No. 4:15-cv-1744 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 25, 2016) quoting Lauer v. Credit Control Services, 2015 WL 5824941 (D. Utah Oct. 6, 2015). The court concluded that the FDCPA penalizes a failure to disclose, but it does not reward a debtor’s actions to prevent that disclosure.
Caren Enloe is a partner who concentrates her practice in consumer financial services litigation and compliance, bankruptcy, and commercial litigation with an emphasis on creditor’s rights. She has a deep understanding of the complex compliance environment surrounding the financial services industry and regularly advises financial service companies on licensing and compliance issues involving state and federal consumer protection and finance statutes. Caren is the author of a daily blog titled: Consumer Financial Services Litigation and Compliance where she posts timely and informative updates regarding the CFPB, FTC, and a host of topical litigation issues involving consumer protection law....LEARN MORE