I just saw this on a legal site. What do you guys think? __________________________________________________ Proposed FDCPA Amendments - Senator Alan Simpson has introduced a bill to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (S. 1379). Senator Simpson noted the courts across the country have handed down contradictory interpretations of the Act, so much so that the Federal Trade Commission has asked Congress to clarify the law. "In addition, the bill gets rid of the $1,000 statutory damage `carrot' that has, through its misuse, become a winning lottery ticket for some lawyers," Simpson said. Under the bill, collectors would still be held responsible for any actual damages suffered. (# 10119) Attorney's fee award under FDCPA denied - The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that plaintiffs are not entitled to their attorneys fees where they prove a mere technical violation of the FDCPA, with no award of actual or additional damage. The Court stated "our interpretation of this statute will require attorneys to look for more than a technical violation of the FDCPA before bringing suit and will deter suits brought only as a means of generating attorneys fees". (# 10120) ________________________________________________ Candi
And this too __________________________________________________ Collection letter may be sent after debtor requests no further contact. After being contacted several times by a collection agency, the debtor sent a letter asking it not to contact him anymore. However, the agency sent another letter asking him to "select one of the following payment arrangements" and stating, "This is an attempt to collect a debt". The Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that once a debtor asks the collection agency to stop, it can contact him only to say that it is: (a) giving up; or (b) pursing a "remedy" such as a repossession, garnishment or a lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit ruled that an additional letter can also qualify as a "remedy" under the FDCPA.
I think you're looking at some dated material. Sen. Alan Simpson retired in 1997. BTW, he was a truly awesome senator. His only motivation for this bill was to limit frivolous litigation.
Thank God! I'm sorry, he may have been good but had this been passed it would have hurt us all. Why is it frivolous to expect these CA's to pay $1k per violation, even if no other actual damages occured? If you ask me it should be $5k per violation, maybe then these jerks would start following the law. Sorry for that info being outdated though, I just came accross it.
