(United States District Court for the District of Maryland, 2013) – Attorney/debt collector sued for attempting to collect bankrupt debt prevails on FDCPA’s bona fide error defense by establishing that law firm required that client not send bankruptcy accounts for collection and where attorney had understanding with client to notify counsel when bankruptcy filed on accounts previously referred for collection.
(United States District Court for the District of Delaware, 2012) – Dismissing debtor suit contending that attorney letter falsely represented attorney involvement in collection process and falsely threatened suit.
(United States District Court for the District of Maryland, 2010) – Law firm meets bona fide error defense under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
(United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2010) – Dismissing suit by attorney representing consumer complaining that collection agency violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not disclosing the call was in connection with the collection of a debt.
(United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 2010) – Dismissing consumer’s suit against debt collector based on prior settlement with creditor that released creditor’s agent from claims based upon collection of the obligation.
(United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 2008) – A debt is not extinguished merely because acreditor charges off the obligation and sends IRS 1099-C form to obligor.
(Maryland 2007) Maryland courts will apply the law selected in a credit card agreement (i.e., South Dakota) in a collection suit brought by a debt buyer regardless of more restrictive Maryland Lending statute.
(United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 2004) – Creditor filing involuntary bankruptcy petition establishes prima facie case of lack of bona fide dispute as to the debt based upon prior unstayed state court judgment.
(Maryland 2001) – Affirming principle that minor child upon reaching age of majority is liable for necessary medical services.
(Maryland 2001) – Court order permitting alternative service by first class mail and posting of summons on debtor’s front door complies with constitutional due process requirements where a debtor has avoided service of process.
