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