Amicus Briefs

February 24, 2017 | Filed under: Debt Collection
Court:
US Supreme Court

Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioners in Ricky Hanson et al vs. Santander Consumer USA, Inc

March 2, 2016 | Filed under: Debt Collection
Court:
US Supreme Court

Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents in Mark J. Sherriff, et al, v. Pamela Gillie and Hazel Meadows

April 21, 2015 | Filed under: Debt Collection
Court:
New York Court of Appeals

Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Defendant-Appellants in Berman vs. City of New York  

September 29, 2014 | Filed under: Debt Collection
Court:
California Court of Appeals

Amicus Curiae Brief Requesting Publication of Bohm, Matsen, Kegel & Aguilera v. Jose Eulogio Bonilla, et al.

July 1, 2014 | Filed under: Debt Collection
Court:
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

This brief supports the Court's decision in favor of Christina Grimes in her case against Enterprise Leasing Co. for practicing improper conduct while attempting to collect a debt.

June 6, 2013 | Filed under: Debt Collection
Court:
US District Court - Eastern District of New York

Amicus Curiae Brief for Berman v. NYC 

January 11, 2011 | Filed under: Debt Collection
Court:
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

The West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act Provides Consumers with a cause of actuin against any person violating prohibited debt collection practices. Any ambiguity in the remedies provisions must be resolved in favor of providing consumers with a cause of action.
 

September 3, 2010 | Filed under: Debt Collection | Tagged with: Consumer Loans
Court:
California Court of Appeals

Liberty Tax Service violated the UCL and the FDCPA by misleading consumers into signing agreements with hidden provisions purporting to allow the cross-collection of debts.
 

September 28, 2009 | Filed under: Debt Collection | Tagged with: FDCPA
Court:
US Supreme Court

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a debt collector may avoid liability by showing beyond a preponderance of the evidence that its violation of the Act “was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” 5 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). Does this defense extend to a debt collector’s
ignorance of the law?
 

Pages