Dec 22, 2020
Levels of Licensure
Current and evolving licensure issues affect our industry as both state and federal regulations become more numerous and complex. Beyond litigation concerns arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other state and federal laws, there have been recent federal enforcement actions, regulatory exams, and extensive licensing and supervisory examination changes. It is important to be aware of these issues in order to help ensure our businesses have processes and procedures in place so that we can comply with this myriad of complexity. I am thankful to be able to pass this important information along to help not only further my regulatory knowledge but advance this realm of our industry as a whole.
Currently, there are 36 states, 4 cities, and the District of Columbia that require those in our industry to hold a license. Luckily, there isn’t currently a movement towards a federal licensure requirement for our industry, eliminating at least this additional requirement for operating our businesses. However, any operation in any of the 36 states requiring licensure, whether it is contracted out or not, means that your business will need licensure for that state/city. Ensuring correct licensure is a crucial step in managing legal compliance and a critical factor in managing risk for your business.
FDCPA’s Relationship to State Licensure
The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is the most commonly used statute in lawsuits against our industry. The FDCPA does not, however, include any licensing requirements. However, this lack of regulation can actually make prosecution under it more subjective, as the reading is thus subject to subsequent judicial interpretations. The FDCPA does include, however, language in sections 15 USC 1692e(1) and (10) that we in our industry don’t allege affiliation with any state or federal entity or make false claims about any license granted from any state or federal agency. Of course, it is known best practices that consumer interactions such as these are not attempted as these represent assured FDCPA prosecutable violations.
While these two sections of the FDCPA are specifically prosecutable, there is much more language in the FDCPA that is more subject to interpretation. Lack of state licensure has case precedent to be ‘not prosecutable’ under the FDCPA as decided by two district state-level rulings: Watson v. Arc Capital in 2017 (Tennessee) and Cox v. Sherman Capital in 2017 (Indiana). Conversely, though, there are state-level rulings from Goetze v. CRA Collections in 2017 (Minnesota) and Veras v. LVNV Funding in 2014 (New Jersey) in which FDCPA reading was interpreted by the Judge as prosecutable regarding licensure requirements under the FDCPA.
In states that require a license, for example from cases in Minnesota and New Jersey, whether the defendant engaged in FDCPA violation explicitly becomes less relevant, as they weren’t following the letter of the law regardless of a Judge’s interpretation of the FDCPA. Another case in New Jersey (Tompkins v. Selip & Stylianou, 2019) saw a similar ruling prosecutable as an FDCPA violation, however, yet again the defendant did not possess the correct state licensure requirements.
By adhering to state licensure requirements, all these violations judged against our industry using the FDCPA would likely be dropped and the cases dismissed. In this case, the judge also ruled that the defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (NJFLA) as well. While the specifics of this NJ statute aren’t necessarily relevant to those of us working outside of New Jersey, the important take-away point is that business entities operating in states must satisfy state licensure statutes as well as FDCPA statutes to avoid even more harsh anti-compliance rulings.
Additional State Law Licensing Litigation
Some in our industry may remember in 2010 in West Virginia when the State Attorney General combed all state records and brought many suits against operators in our industry who did not seem to have the correct licensing requirements. The take-away of this situation is that this could happen in any state at any time and ensuring compliance on the front end is crucial to not get caught up in a net of perceived impropriety. While this example only affected one state, it could happen anywhere, and maintaining the best risk management practices by ensuring adequate licensure at the state level is crucial. Massachusetts represents another state that brought large-scale compliance questions to the forefront of our industry’s operations by questioning the very definition of “operators” in our industry, introducing large-scale ambiguity, and opening doors to question the definition of an operator and which entities operating in the state need licenses versus not. With a state-level large-scale question regarding the very definition of who needs a license, district judges could potentially rule favorably regarding whether a license is needed to conduct our business, and yet the converse can also be judged to be the case. Due to this potential ambiguity of interpretation, the best risk mitigation is to possess state licenses as needed and interpret need broadly. Obviously, all business decisions must be made under the umbrella of risk and reward, but the net of state licensure compliance can be broadly cast and proper compliance from the beginning of business operations is an excellent way to continue smooth business operations.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and State Licensure
Those not new to our industry most assuredly remember the 2010 UDAAP (unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices) addition to the CFPB. The addition of this UDAAP language opened CFPB interpretation to include a much broader net. For instance, the CFPB brought a group of actions that stated that because the loan origination was in violation of a particular state’s licensing requirements, the collection of these debts was also in violation of the law. While due diligence of portfolio acquisition is a major tenet of our industry that I’ve discussed before, this example of the CFPB’s very broad interpretation of state licensing requirements was unprecedented, and one that even proper portfolio vetting may not readily uncover. Interpreting UDAAP with such latitude has not occurred since, and the cases were all dropped due to staffing appointment changes in the CFPB; but such wide brushstrokes of interpretation present a threat to the smooth operation of our industry, especially since these cases could have been brought against businesses in our industry who always ensure best practices and adequate state licensing requirements on even a tertiary level. Put simply, even proper risk mitigation could potentially not protect a business in a situation such as this. Regardless, following all state licensing requirements still provides a first-level defense against litigation and is a way to ensure compliance and operate under best practices for risk mitigation and excellence in business operations.
Underscoring the Importance of Licensing
If it wasn’t clear to us all previously, seeing these collected cases against our industry demonstrates that having correct state licensure requirements is a simple way to avoid any legal pushback on the state and federal level. Especially since many cases use the FDCPA to bring the cases, which even without extant specific state legislation, having correct state licensure will prohibit clashes with Federal regulation violations. Of course, invoking the FDCPA won’t be judges as prosecutable in all judges’ rulings, but throwing that di may not be a best-case risk/reward scenario.
Now more than ever state licensure requirements are an important aspect of compliance, best practices, and a great safety net to avoid litigation. Given the broad interpretation of the FDCPA by numerous courts across the country, we have yet another example of compliance with all laws, requirements, and statutes at the state (and federal) level being essential for smooth business operations. At Tag Process, we are consummate compliance professionals and can help any aspect of your business succeed in regards to service, due process, and best practices for consumers while upholding our industry’s highest standards. We look forward to working with you in all aspects of our industry using the utmost professionalism and broad knowledge from which to work.
Disclaimer
This information is not legal advice and may not be used as legal advice. The information discussed or contained is not an explanation of the law and is presented for educational purposes only.
Dec 14, 2020
Defining the Definitions
Now that I am officially a Certified Receivables Compliance Professional through Receivables Management Association International (RMAI), I am aware that it is even more important to ensure that I and my business are always fully compliant with all laws affecting our industry. Of course, receiving my certification will not result in any big changes in the way we operate at Tag Process, since compliance was always a cornerstone of our business; however, obtaining RMAI certification proves how serious Tag Process is about compliance and best practices in our industry. In this webinar, three of the best in the business of defending our industry present examples and data from cases to help guide us towards best practices moving forward.
Keeping Records as Best Practice
We’ll start with some hard-hitting questions. Can you prove, for instance, whether your ATDS (automatic telephonic dialing system) only calls cell phones? Do your call records provide the ability to document what numbers your ATDS called and when? If not, these could be serious mistakes that cost you, in the long run, should a litigious plaintiff receive phone calls that you can’t prove any of the following: that you were indeed a live person, you have a record of prior permission to call, and/or the number was assuredly listed as a cell. Having data to support your story or case is crucial! A keen awareness of how, not only your telephone dialing system works but also keen records’ maintenance on all aspects of your consumer contact (calls, letters, electronic interactions, etc.) will provide insulation for any future possible problems. Data collection and record maintenance are our industry’s version of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure.
Another example of data that needs to be kept and detailed records maintained is time-barred debt and any resulting lawsuits from these. For example, say a plaintiff has filed a class action under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) alleging that your company had a pattern of filing suits on time-barred debts; however, you have a policy that expressly prohibits such suits. Obviously, this isn’t something you did, you think. However, having a policy isn’t enough if you have to prove in a lawsuit that your business always complies with your policy. One way to determine whether you have followed your policy on time-barred consumer debts is your paper trail of the time-barred debt disclosures you’ve sent. Not only having the records of these disclosures, but making sure that the language used complies with CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) policy and statutes is critical. Keeping accurate records and ensuring compliance in all consumer communication will go miles in insulating your company from litigious claims, saving time, money, headaches, and calls with your attorney.
Contact Consent and Settlement Letters
Any contact with consumers should be documented, as stated above. If a consumer says you’ve sent a concession letter stating they can pay less but request the full payment when they do call in, do you have data, not just from their claim, but historical records of settlement offers, amounts paid, accommodations for consumers, etc.? Again, and it can’t be stressed enough: best practices don’t just include policies stating that you will honor settlement offer letters, you need actual documentation of the contact letters, the resulting amounts paid, any accommodations offered, and any other relevant consumer contact instances.
Keeping a detailed paper trail also applies to contact consent documentation. If a consumer sues you stating that you do not have consent to contact them on their cell phone, do you have that record of consent? Do you have the latest statutes and regulations regarding consent revocation on file as well as knowledge of these to ensure that your contractual consent still applies? Any and all documentation you have will assist any case brought against your business. If you ask for consent digitally, It is very important to ensure that any opt-in regarding consent on your business’s website is maintained in a meaningful way and can be accessed later.
Meaningful Involvement by Attorneys
In another example, say the plaintiff has filed a class action alleging that your attorneys were not meaningfully involved in the files on which they filed suit for your company. Does the data and information you have on hand support the meaningful involvement of your attorneys in any actions they have taken on your behalf? Are you (and your attorneys) aware and well-versed in the state of the law regarding attorney involvement, including any new rulings for your state or on the federal level? The answers to these questions should obviously be yes and ensuring you and your attorney are on the same page regarding all actions for your business is crucial. In this situation, communication is key as well as adequate record keeping. You’ll need proof of your involvement in any document sent directly by your attorneys to consumers. This can be accomplished via a digital paper trail on your computer or some form of digital encryption. Additionally, there is safe harbor language drafted by the CFPB that can also be utilized by your attorney to assist in drafting documents that will theoretically be less problematic for litigious consumers to document their meaningful involvement.
Summary
These examples are scenarios that have happened to businesses in our industry. We’ve all learned over the years, and the defense attorneys for our industry also routinely mention, there is no lack of creativity regarding the consumer complaints against our industry. The data and scenarios presented here outline specific situations in which ensuring data collection, record keeping, and information storage are important. Applying these principles to all consumer-facing communications is crucial for not only compliance but continued operations without constant conundrums. Thus, while it is interesting to hear about these specific instances of suits against businesses in our industry, the key take-away point is to insulate your business against these claims by maintaining flawless records of contact and keeping these data easily and readily accessible. Similar to issues with data breaches, keeping your records and data safe, secure, and organized follows the age old adage of “better safe than sorry.” These are especially wise words in our current litigious society. Luckily, working with Tag Process as a service provider helps insulate your business from problems since we focus so heavily on maintaining best practices and constant compliance.
Disclaimer
This information is not legal advice and may not be used as legal advice. Information discussed or contained is not an explanation of the law and is presented for educational purposes only.
Dec 9, 2020
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released its debt collection proposal for time-barred debt in May of 2019. To date, the regulations, while published in the Federal Register, are still not finalized, as the comment period has been extended numerous times since its March 2020 publication. Regardless of additional stipulations and changes to the document, the main ideas published in the Federal Register provide our industry with the current structure and ideology of the CFPB and how our industry can best respond.
Out of Statute Debt
We all know that statutes of limitations vary by state, but whether the debt can be revived, what revives that debt, and what type of debt it is are all factors we’re currently awaiting the official CFPB word on. The point of time-barring debt is part of the CFPB’s job to advance a defendant’s interest in repose, eliminate stale claims (loss of evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses, fading memories, the disappearance of documents, or otherwise) and to provide certainty about a plaintiff’s opportunity for recovery and a defendant’s potential liabilities; but, what is reasonable to accommodate these factors and actual collection of legitimate debt are still out for (final) decision.
Time-barred debt as a concept requires that a debt collector must disclose to consumers that: the law limits how long the consumer can be sued for a debt; the debt collector’s right to bring legal action against the consumer to collect the debt can be revived under applicable law; and, outlines the circumstances in which this can occur. How these concepts are worded to a consumer can determine whether these debts are revived and/or become the potential subject of a claim.
Model Disclosure
The CFPB proposes model language and forms that debt collectors can use to comply with the proposed disclosure requirements when collecting time-barred debt. Using this model language creates a safe harbor for our industry when attempting to collect a time-barred debt to help ensure compliance. Out of statute debt disclosure is necessary because a debt collector’s attempt to collect a time-barred debt is, according to the CFPB, likely to give a consumer the false impression that the debt is legally enforceable and likely to affect a consumer’s decision whether to pay or prioritize the debt. However, the verbiage is largely negative towards our industry and yet still creates ambiguity for the role of the consumer to know whether they can request additional information about the debt and whether that revives the debt. In fact, many in our industry will not sue or use the statute to revive the debt if the consumer asks a question about the debt; however, the way the model disclosure is worded seemingly makes any inquiry the consumer might have about their debt seem as if they could end up getting sued.
The verbatim model disclosure language points from the CFPB are included below:
- The actual language from the law limits how long you can be sued for a debt.
- Because of the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it.
- The law limits how long you can be sued for a debt. If you do nothing or speak to us about this debt, we will not sue you to collect it. This is because the debt is too old. BUT if you make a payment, then we can sue you to collect it.
- The law limits how long you can be sued for a debt. If you do nothing or speak to us about this debt, we will not sue you to collect it. This is because the debt is too old. BUT if you acknowledge in writing that you owe this debt, then we can sue you to collect it.
- The law limits how long you can be sued for a debt. If you do nothing or speak to us about this debt, we will not sue you to collect it. This is because the debt is too old. BUT if you make a payment or acknowledge in writing that you owe this debt, then we can sue you to collect it.
Again, most in our industry won’t sue a consumer and do not want to involve ourselves in lengthy litigation over debt, and all of us who are RMAI certified know litigiously conducting our jobs is essentially against our best practices and compliance doctrines. In fact, the proposed CFPB language contradicts RMAI Certification Standard A12, so those of us with our certifications know we won’t sue a consumer over a revived debt. However, these model disclosures from the CFPB are written to lead consumers to believe this is the outcome of making a payment.
Regardless of whether communication with a consumer is written or oral, the CFPB requires that one of these four disclosures be provided to the consumer for any out of statute debt when such debt becomes time-barred. However, a proposed rule from the CFPB does state that a consumer must have easily accessible to them the statement regarding the out of statute nature of the debt, meaning that a debt collector must provide this information in writing.
Issues and Solutions Moving Forward with the CFPB’s Language
If a consumer wants to pay on a debt, will the CFPB’s language create an element of fear for them to take that action? What will happen if state law statute of limitation and federal law are different? What will happen if a debt is already being paid and an agreement has been reached with a consumer and the language in the CFPB detracts from that arrangement? In short, the CFPB proposed language and rulemaking on out of statute debt raises more concerns and questions for both our industry and consumers than answers.
Luckily, RMAI certified businesses recognize out of statute debt will always be out of statute and not revived for litigation. In fact, the RMAI Model Statute of Limitations states that nothing can revive the debt or extend the limitation period. New York, California, Maine, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Connecticut, and Maryland have all adopted RMAI’s Statute of Limitations. Unfortunately, though, even with RMAI’s plain language and favor towards the consumer, the CFPB’s model disclosure is the language that ensures federal compliance. RMAI will be working on providing a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) to the CFPB and they encourage any RMAI members to help them work on these important statutes and industry standards by reaching out to RMAI and providing your ideas, feedback, and comments to pass along to their Board and help shape our industry as these federal CFPB statutes are finalized. I know I am personally looking forward to the CFPB language not making our industry sound anti-consumer and am happy to help them adopt more fair language than the current model disclosure wordings.
Disclaimer
This information is not legal advice and may not be used as legal advice. Information discussed or contained is not an explanation of the law and is presented for educational purposes only.
Dec 2, 2020
COVID-19 has changed many ways of doing things, including our jobs as debt collectors. By now most of us are aware of the changes the pandemic has affected our daily operations, for instance, possible operational changes related to the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act. However, largely for posterity’s sake, in this edition of my legal and legislative takes on news affecting our industry, I wanted to provide a timely update and document the changes on record with regard to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and how it relates to our nation’s COVID-19 legislation.
Questions Abound
While many regulations, reporting requirements, and allowances, especially at the state level, have been unclear, the CARES Act is at least theoretically clear. However, the very definition of who is allowed accommodation brings up questions about, essentially, whether, by default, all consumers are defined as impacted by COVID-19. The definition of “affected by COVID-19 is not specifically addressed and thus how they are accommodated is not specified in the CARES Act. In fact, as we’ve seen as this national state of emergency continue, various lenders have reacted differently to their financial obligations under the CARES Act. And yet, one clear point from the CARES Act is that any charged-off account is not subject to accommodation. While not explicitly considered, our industry thus has some “wiggle-room” to interpret their reactions to their operations under the CARES Act. I have discussed ways to avoid potential litigation ex post facto in two previous blogs, and as ever, keeping up-to-date with all relevant regulations while maintaining your business’s bottom line and subsequently acknowledging that we are all in the midst of a declared national health emergency are the three key points to consider when determining how your operations are and will be affected by subsequent interpretations of various legislative changes surrounding COVID-19.
Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA)
CDIA guidelines suggest that we report accounts as AW (affected by natural or declared disaster) regardless of what is explicitly covered by the CARES Act or demanded by a consumer. We do not have to cease collections but by preemptively covering your operations from consumer counterclaims or future class action suits during this unprecedented time by marking reports to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as AW, we can promote a best practice towards consumers and protect ourselves given the ambiguity in the current regulations. Especially given the various pandemic related changes to state regulations, this huge ambiguity, and potential for actions ex post facto, adding the AW code to consumer files will help provide a buffer in case the federal CARES Act ends and yet a state still has their state of emergency declared, for instance.
Best Practices
It’s hard to navigate these uncharted waters for best practices from all sides, especially when there aren’t explicit regulations in place, which unfortunately can place compliance in a form of limbo. Since Tag Process focuses on compliance as our chief operating principle, ambiguity can create wrinkles in our operations when there is gray area regarding laws and regulations. However, adopting a consumer-centric policy during these unprecedented times is a way to ensure that we’re implementing best practices within this gray area. At Tag Process we’re taking the straight and narrow path to make the right decisions for our customers during this national disaster, even when it’s not required explicitly by law. We look forward to working with our consumers to assist with fair and equitable debt collection practices throughout life’s ups and downs no matter what they are.
Disclaimer
This information is not legal advice and may not be used as legal advice. Information discussed or contained is not an explanation of the law and is presented for educational purposes only.
Dec 1, 2020
We’re excited to announce that an article written by Dave Rolf, CEO of Tag Process, has been published in ServeNow.com. We’ve provided an excerpt below, but be sure to read the full article!
Many process servers rely on work from debt collection firms as this kind of work is often reliable and plentiful. As a result, process servers end up being in the middle of debt collection attempts when they deliver service of process, which can undoubtedly put servers in a tricky position if they are unprepared. For example, just this past summer, process servers in New Jersey found themselves in the middle of a lawsuit. Although no one is 100% immune from finding themselves the subject of a lawsuit, there is plenty that process servers can do to prepare for and combat costly litigation. Learn more by hearing from two excellent attorneys in the field, Ron Canter and David Anthony, and get tips on how you can avoid costly litigation by focusing on compliance and forging relationships.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE.
Nov 25, 2020
With many of us struggling to cope with our new normal and conduct our business in accordance with all relevant COVID-19 policies, it has been more difficult than ever to keep up with the recent and relevant court cases affecting our industry. As the courts shifted their operations to accommodate our new normal, there was a pause in judgments. However, recently, many courts have begun to open back up for decisions including many Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) updates. In case you missed these relevant decisions, we here at Tag Process are ready to help get you up to speed on the recent court updates affecting our industry!
Payment Portal Cases
In a decision made in May of this year, a New Mexico court ruled that individual pages within a payment portal can be viewed as a whole. Thus if there are “good faith” errors on a payment processing page, there is now precedent for even the least sophisticated consumer to investigate the payments and site fully before bringing a case to bear for an error in a payment option. This allows our industry to rest a little easier without worrying about getting slammed with a lawsuit for possibly one incorrect page on a payment portal site as a whole.
It can’t all be good news, though. In April, a decision was reached regarding a consumer-facing web page counting as a communication method with a consumer and thus, for instance, if a debt is time-barred, it must be stated on the webpage for the consumer to see as well as making sure you’ve sent any validation letters prior to putting any information regarding any debt on a consumer-facing site. Essentially, various questionable terms in the FDCPA, in this instance, “communication” with a consumer includes a website as a medium. This broad interpretation is an important distinction and knowledge point for our industry moving forward in our methods of communication. Along these lines, it is important to ensure that your terms, conditions, and disclosures are listed on your site. Additionally, any consumer-facing site for payment must include any Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, your firm’s privacy practices, and a Miranda compliance portion as well, including a citation of the FDCPA compliant mini-Miranda. Listing a fuller Miranda than the commonly accepted FDCPA compliant one should be considered as objective evidence that you are using your website as an indirect means to collect a debt and opens a website to the interpretation of an indirect means to collect a debt.
Collection Letters and Overshadowing
March brought a decision in the Third Circuit stating that collectors needn’t respond in writing to a consumer’s dispute within 30 days: an oral response to a debt dispute is a permissible means of communicating with a consumer. This decision adds flexibility for those of us operating in the Third Circuit and an additional national precedent to FDCPA interpretation of consumer communication giving us some leniency in how we communicate with consumers.
In two additional decisions regarding collection letters, the Eastern District of New York ruled that moving to page two of a debt validation letter and by listing additional options as a means for a consumer to pay (for instance, a creditor using a third party payment method/software) was not too confusing for even the least sophisticated consumer to understand. Both of these collection letter decisions are interpretations of best practices that don’t by default create booby-trapped eggshells for sending out consumer notices. Whether you operate in this district of New York or not, having these case precedent decisions will help elsewhere as judgments are brought across the nation regarding collection letters.
Validation Letter Updates
Even in California, it was ruled this year that a debt validation notice can be sent via email to a consumer and comply with FDCPA regulations. However, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is certainly moving towards making email notifications explicitly worded in order to create less confusion and ability for all consumers to understand what the email is, why they are getting it, and that provides e-options directly to them for processing payments. Until these regulations officially come out though, one best practice to consider if you are sending validation notices by email is whether the consumer is receiving them. This aspect is certainly a gray area at the moment, with the inability to complete validation if it can be called into question whether the consumer has received the electronic communication.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) TCPA Database as Safe Harbor
In an effort to assist both consumers and agencies, the FCC will roll out their Reassigned Number Database in 2021. The Reassigned Number Database is the FCC’s solution to the numerous consumer complaints of calls to reassigned numbers without having received prior consent as well as the hefty inadvertent charges businesses are incurring by calling a new owner of a number with prior consent regarding a collection call. Observing how this database will work in practice is obviously to be determined, but it does strike a balance between industry and consumer needs by providing the industry with updated records. The use of the database will cost, but utilizing it essentially will amount to having insurance for receiving a giant TCPA violation bill or class action suit. Given that in two recent court decisions, one in California and one in the 11th Circuit, TCPA regulations reaffirmed the requirement of consent to call, the FCC Database will theoretically provide a more helpful resource than not for our industry to maintain TCPA compliance. In further TCPA wins for our industry, a Florida District court overturned an earlier Florida ruling that a consumer can revoke contractual consent for calls regarding a debt.
Valid When Made
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) ruled that any loan made by a valid financial institution is valid regarding interest rates for transferred accounts. Non-banks can still enforce the original interest rates and fees from the origination of the loan under these decisions from both the OCC and FDIC. Continuing, loan terms continue through sale; thus, even if a state had lower maximum interest rates than the originating bank, the original rate applies and extends to the buyer. These terms mitigate potential FDCPA liability for alleged misleading statements regarding debt and calculated interest and is a significant national decision affecting our industry.
Compliance is Key; Compliance is Tricky
To do our jobs anymore we must be ever vigilant to the myriad of decisions, rulings, and various updates throughout all courts in the nation, as courts and legislation are always making decisions that affect precedent elsewhere and the cost of noncompliance can be extremely great. I am truly grateful to the industry for providing the learning opportunities so that I can provide the best service to my clients.
Disclaimer
This information is not legal advice and may not be used as legal advice. Information discussed or contained is not an explanation of the law and is presented for educational purposes only.
