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.
Please feel free to contact me for more information or to discuss these cases or any other UDAAP developments.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Related Insights
14 January 2025
Health Care Law Today
Massachusetts: New Year, New Law — Governor Signs “An Act enhancing the market review process” (House Bill No. 5159)
On January 8, 2025, Governor Maura Healey signed into law H.B. 5159, “an Act enhancing the market review process.”
13 January 2025
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Illinois Human Rights Act Now Protects Employees With “Family Responsibilities”
As of January 1, 2025, Illinois became the latest in a minority of states and municipalities to expand employment protections for employees who act as family caregivers.
13 January 2025
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Complying With Recent Guidance From Delaware Courts Regarding Enforcement of Noncompetes
In line with the national trend making noncompetes more difficult to enforce, a number of Delaware courts have recently refused to “blue pencil” overbroad noncompetition agreements and have stricken them in their entirety.