Download Free The Debt Collection Practices Act Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Debt Collection Practices Act and write the review.

"The United States Code is the official codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States of America. The Code was first published in 1926, and a new edition of the code has been published every six years since 1934. The 2012 edition of the Code incorporates laws enacted through the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, the last of which was signed by the President on January 15, 2013. It does not include laws of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, enacted between January 2, 2013, the date it convened, and January 15, 2013. By statutory authority this edition may be cited "U.S.C. 2012 ed." As adopted in 1926, the Code established prima facie the general and permanent laws of the United States. The underlying statutes reprinted in the Code remained in effect and controlled over the Code in case of any discrepancy. In 1947, Congress began enacting individual titles of the Code into positive law. When a title is enacted into positive law, the underlying statutes are repealed and the title then becomes legal evidence of the law. Currently, 26 of the 51 titles in the Code have been so enacted. These are identified in the table of titles near the beginning of each volume. The Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives continues to prepare legislation pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 285b to enact the remainder of the Code, on a title-by-title basis, into positive law. The 2012 edition of the Code was prepared and published under the supervision of Ralph V. Seep, Law Revision Counsel. Grateful acknowledgment is made of the contributions by all who helped in this work, particularly the staffs of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and the Government Printing Office"--Preface.
The Federal Trade Commission receives more complaints about rogue debt collecting than about any activity besides identity theft. Dramatically and entertainingly, Bad Paper reveals why. It tells the story of Aaron Siegel, a former banking executive, and Brandon Wilson, a former armed robber, who become partners and go in quest of "paper"—the uncollected debts that are sold off by banks for pennies on the dollar. As Aaron and Brandon learn, the world of consumer debt collection is an unregulated shadowland where operators often make unwarranted threats and even collect debts that are not theirs. Introducing an unforgettable cast of strivers and rogues, Jake Halpern chronicles their lives as they manage high-pressure call centers, hunt for paper in Las Vegas casinos, and meet in parked cars to sell the social security numbers and account information of unsuspecting consumers. He also tracks a "package" of debt that is stolen by unscrupulous collectors, leading to a dramatic showdown with guns in a Buffalo corner store. Along the way, he reveals the human cost of a system that compounds the troubles of hardworking Americans and permits banks to ignore their former customers. The result is a vital exposé that is also a bravura feat of storytelling.
Creditors and collectors seek to recover consumer debts through the use of litigation and arbitration. But, neither litigation nor arbitration currently provides adequate protection for consumers. The system for resolving disputes about consumer debts is broken. To fix the system, federal and state governments, the debt collection industry, and other stakeholders should make a variety of significant reforms in litigation and arbitration so that the system is both efficient and fair. Contents of this report: Introduction; Litigation and Arbitration Proceedings; Conclusion. Appendices: Debt Collection Roundtable (DCR) Panelists; Contributors to DCR; Agendas for DCR; DCR Public Comments; Sample State Debt Collection Checklists. Illustrations.
I look at being sued by a debt collector like this: If you are going to sue me, you better have the proof and documentation to validate it. I will fight and tooth and nail if the attorney or law firm can't or won't show proper proof. It doesn't matter if I owe the debt or not. I am not an “easy money target†and after you read my book neither will you.
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret, and apply provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Volume 1 of the casebook covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.* * * The statutory purposes of the FDCPA are to "eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). "The legislative history of the passage of the FDCPA explains that the need for the FDCPA arose" because of a number of different "collection abuses," such as the use of "'obscene or profane language, threats of violence, telephone calls at unreasonable hours, [and] misrepresentation of a consumer's legal rights.'" Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 2 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1696). The legislative history of the FDCPA is clear that the statute also was intended to "eliminate the recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person." S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1699. The report of the House of Representatives explained: This bill also protects people who do not owe money at all. In the collector's zeal, collection efforts are often aimed at the wrong person either because of mistaken identity or mistaken facts. This bill will make collectors behave responsibly towards people with whom they deal.... Certainly a person who has a common name and is being hounded by a debt collector because of the debts of another person deserves the protection this legislation will offer. In far too many cases debt collectors do not even bother to double check common names before beginning collection efforts.H.R. Rep. 95-131 at 8 (1977). Wagner v. Chiari & Ilecki, LLP, 973 F. 3d 154 (2nd Cir. 2020)
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The selection of decisions spans from 2014 to the date of publication.The FDCPA regulates the conduct of "debt collectors," defined to include "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." Id. � 1692a(6). Among other things, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt," and from using "unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt." Id. �� 1692e-1692f. The statute provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct that is deceptive or unfair (e.g., falsely implying that the debt collector is affiliated with the United States, id. � 1692e(1)). Debt collectors who violate the FDCPA are liable for actual damages, statutory damages of up to $1,000, and attorney's fees and costs. See id. � 1692k(a). In re Dubois, 834 F. 3d 522 (4th Cir. 2016).The definition of debt collector, which is contained in � 1692a(6), is comprised of two parts. The first part defines the classes of persons that are included within the term "debt collector," while the second part defines those classes of persons that are excluded from the definition of debt collector. The first part, defining those who are included, provides in relevant part: The term "debt collector" means any person [1] who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or [2] who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor [3] who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.15 U.S.C. � 1692a(6) (emphasis added). Stated more simply, this provision defines a debt collector as (1) a person whose principal purpose is to collect debts; (2) a person who regularly collects debts owed to another: or (3) a person who collects its own debts, using a name other than its own as if it were a debt collector. Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 817 F. 3d 131 (4th Cir. 2016).The second part of � 1692a(6) defines the classes of persons that are excluded from the definition of debt collector, so that a person who meets one of the definitions of debt collector contained in the first part of � 1692a(6) will not qualify as such if it falls within one of the exclusions.