CONSUMERS OVERCOME COMMON DEFENSE ARGUMENTS:
RECENT CASE EXCERPTS
(1)
The Litigation Privilege
Weigand v. Cheung, No. 2:14-cv-00278, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13516 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 4,
2015)
The Court adopts the reasoning of Judge Lasnik of the Western District of
Washington in holding that all litigation activities, including formal pleadings, are
subject to the FDCPA, except to the limited extent that Congress exempted formal
pleadings from the particular requirements of § 1692e(11). As Judge Lasnik explained:
a proper reading of Heintz necessitates that some litigation activities are subject
to the FDCPA. In Heintz, the Supreme Court held that “lawyer[s] who ‘regularly,’
through litigation, tr[y] to collect consumer debts” are included in the FDCPA’s
definition of “debt collector.” Heintz, 514 U.S. at 292 (emphasis in original). That
decision would be meaningless if there were no litigation-based way for those
same “debt collectors” to violate the FDCPA. Furthermore, Heintz’s reasoning
indicates explicitly that the Court intended the FDCPA to apply not only to
litigators but also to litigation activities. See, e.g., id. at 295 (rebutting the
argument that “many of the [FDCPA’s] requirements, if applied directly to
litigating activities, [would] create harmfully anomalous results”).
Medialdea v. Law Office of Evan L. Loeffler PLLC, No. CV09-55RSL, 2009 WL 1767185, at *4
(W.D. Wash. June 19, 2009). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish
that Defendants are debt collectors under the FDCPA. As such, they are not entitled to
protection under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine or Washington litigation’s privilege.
(2)
Statute of Limitations
Davis v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 13-4396, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124731 (E.D. Pa.
Aug. 11, 2014)
There is a one-year statute of limitations for FDCPA claims. See 15 U.S.C. §
1692k(d). “Courts disagree as to when the statute begins to run where the alleged
violation is the filing of a lawsuit.” Jones v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., No. Civ. A. 055774, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4031, 2006 WL 266102 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2006); see also
Schroeder v. Bank of Am. Corp., 3:12-CV-589, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185948, 2012 WL
6929272 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, 3:CV-12-0589,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19101, 2013 WL 298058 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2013). Compare Johnson
v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1113-15 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding that the statute of limitations
begins to run only once a defendant has been served with notice of a lawsuit) with Naas
1
v. Stolman, 130 F.3d 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding that the statute of limitations begins
to run on the date a lawsuit is filed). This Court has previously resolved that “[w]hen
FDCPA claims are predicated upon improperly bringing [*9] debt collection litigation,
the one-year limitations period begins to run-at latest-when the debtor is served with
process.” Brown v. Udren Law Offices PC, Civ. No. 11-2697, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102004,
2011 WL 4011411, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2011).
(3)
Qualifying Debt Collection Conduct
Powell v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, No. 14-1171, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23833
(4th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014)
Powell contends first that the district court erred in concluding that the filing of
an assignment of judgment in a debt collection action does not constitute debt collection
activity that implicates the FDCPA. In reaching its conclusion, the district court
considered three factors: “(1) whether the communication included a demand for
payment or had the ‘animating purpose’ to induce payment; (2) the relationship
between the parties; and (3) the purpose and context of the communication.” While the
court acknowledged that the relationship between the parties was that of debtor and
debt collector, it found that the Assignment of Judgment did not contain a demand for
payment and was not filed to induce payment.
To determine whether the filing of an assignment of judgment in a debt
collection action triggers application of the FDCPA, we look first to the text of the
statute -- in this case, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and § 1692f. Section 1692e prohibits debt
collectors from “us[ing] any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (emphasis added), and §
1692f prohibits debt collectors from “us[ing] unfair or unconscionable means to collect
or attempt to collect any debt,” id. § 1692f (emphasis added). It is apparent that nothing
in this language requires that a debt collector’s misrepresentation be made as part of an
express demand for payment or even as part of an action designed to induce the debtor
to pay. Cf. Gburek v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, 614 F.3d 380, 385 (7th Cir. 2010) (noting
“that a communication need not make an explicit demand for payment in order to fall
within the FDCPA’s scope” and that “a communication made specifically to induce the
debtor to settle her debt will be sufficient to trigger the protections of the FDCPA”
(emphasis added)). *** “[w]hen an assignment [of judgment] is filed, the judgment may
thereafter be enforced in the name of the assignee to the extent of the assigned interest.”
*** Thus, it can hardly be disputed that when a person files an assignment of judgment
in a debt collection action so as to be able to execute on the judgment, the person has
taken action in connection with the collection of the judgment debt or as part of an
attempt to collect the judgment debt.
2
(4)
State Court Collection Proceedings
Currier v. First Resolution Inv. Corp., 762 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2014)
Maintaining an invalid lien against a debtor’s home falls comfortably within the
kinds of practices Congress has identified as unfair under § 1692f of the FDCPA. As
First Resolution admitted at oral argument, the judgment lien exposed Currier to
publicity and damaged her credit. This practice would cause at least as much improper
public exposure as communicating with a consumer via post card or sending mail with
a symbol other than the debt collector’s address. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(7)-(8). Filing an
invalid lien is also comparable to taking or threatening to take a nonjudicial action to
effect the dispossession of property in which the debt collector has no enforceable
security interest. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6). Though invalid, the judgment lien appears
valid on its face, thus representing to the least sophisticated consumer and the public
that the creditor had a final judgment, had a right to execute on that judgment, and had
a valid interest in the debtor’s home. See Hartman, 569 F.3d at 613-14 (holding that
where a jury could find that the least sophisticated consumer would be misled by a debt
collection document, summary judgment for the defendant was improper under §§
1692e and 1692f).
(5)
Bona Fide Error
Engelen v. Erin Capital Management, LLC, 544 Fed. Appx. 707 (9th Cir. 2013)
The district court erred by concluding that Rosen & Loeb erroneously garnished
Engelen’s wages “notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted
to avoid any such error.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). Rosen & Loeb garnished Engelen’s
wages after Engelen had already satisfied the debt because its bookkeeper failed to
record Engelen’s payment (and those of ten other debtors that day). Construing the
evidence in the light most favorable to Engelen, Rosen & Loeb’s procedures, which
consisted of legal compliance training, a written policy describing how payment
notifications were to be handled, and periodic spot-checking of the bookkeeper’s work,
were not, as a matter of law, “reasonable preventive procedures aimed at avoiding the
errors.” Reichert v. Nat’l Credit Sys., 531 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted); Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F.3d 1507, 1514 (9th Cir.
1994).
Besides the periodic spot-checking, none of Rosen & Loeb’s procedures were
aimed at preventing wrongful wage garnishments caused by the bookkeeper’s failure to
record payment information. And even the periodic spot-checking did not consistently
reduce the likelihood of recording errors. Spot-checking, by definition, examines only a
small sample of a larger group for errors, and here even that practice was periodic. In
other words, sometimes — perhaps once a week or once a month, we do not know —
3
Lori Chertok inspected a small percentage of the bookkeeper’s total entries for mistakes.
This form of occasional spot-checking is not among the types of “processes that have
mechanical or other such ‘regularly orderly’ steps to avoid mistakes . . . .” Jerman v.
Carlisle, 559 U.S. 573, 587, 130 S. Ct. 1605, 176 L. Ed. 2d 519 (2010).
(6)
The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC, Nos. 13-2742, 13-2747, 13-2748, 2015 U.S.
App. LEXIS 2057 (2d Cir. 2015)
Rooker-Feldman bars the federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over claims
“brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments
rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court
review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). We have clarified that in order to satisfy the requirements of
Rooker-Feldman, the defendant must satisfy the following four requirements: First, the
federal-court plaintiff must have lost in state court. Second, the plaintiff must complain
of injuries caused by a state-court judgment. Third, the plaintiff must invite district
court review and rejection of that judgment. Fourth, the state-court judgment must have
been rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85
(internal quotation marks and modifications omitted). The causation requirement is
only satisfied if “the third party’s actions are produced by a state court judgment and
not simply ratified, acquiesced in, or left unpunished by it.” Id. at 88.
The district court concluded, at the motion to dismiss stage, that “plaintiffs assert
claims independent of the state-court judgments and do not seek to overturn them.”
Sykes I, 757 F. Supp. 2d at 429. We agree. As explained previously, claims sounding
under the FDCPA, RICO, and state law speak not to the propriety of the state court
judgments, but to the fraudulent course of conduct that defendants pursued in
obtaining such judgments.
(7)
“Baiting” the debt collector
Huebner v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 14-CV-6046, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2015
WL 569194 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2015)
Defendant alleged that the consumer and his lawyer “baited” a debt-collector
during two recorded telephone calls in an attempt to elicit a violation. Upon finding no
violation, the court dismissed the case and ordered that the plaintiff and his attorney
show cause why fees and costs should not be awarded under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3),
and sanctions issued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
4
VII. Abusive Practices — FDCPA
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
•
Officers or employees of an institution who collect debts
owed to the institution in the institution’s name.
Introduction
•
Legal process servers.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), effective in
1978, was designed to eliminate abusive, deceptive, and unfair
debt collection practices. The federal law also protects
reputable debt collectors from unfair competition and
encourages consistent state action to protect consumers from
abuses in debt collection.
The FDCPA applies only to the collection of debt incurred by
a consumer primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. It does not apply to the collection of corporate debt
or to debt for business or agricultural purposes.
Regulation Overview
Debt That Is Covered
The FDCPA applies only to the collection of debt incurred by
a consumer primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. It does not apply to the collection of corporate debt
or to debt owed for business or agricultural purposes.
Debt Collectors That Are Covered
Under FDCPA, a “debt collector” is defined as any person
who regularly collects, or attempts to collect, consumer debts
for another person or institution or uses some name other than
its own when collecting its own consumer debts. That
definition would include, for example, an institution that
regularly collects debts for an unrelated institution. This
includes reciprocal service arrangements where one institution
solicits the help of another in collecting a defaulted debt from
a customer who has moved.
Debt Collectors That Are Not Covered
An institution is not a debt collector under the FDCPA when it
collects:
Communications Connected with Debt Collection
For communications with a consumer or third party connected
with the collection of a debt, the term “consumer” is defined to
include the borrower’s spouse, parent (if the borrower is a
minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.
When, Where, and With Whom Communication is
Permitted
Communicating with the Consumer
A debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at any
unusual time (generally before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in the
consumer’s time zone) or at any place that is inconvenient to
the consumer, unless the consumer or a court of competent
jurisdiction has already given permission for such contacts. A
debt collector may not contact the consumer at his or her place
of employment if the collector has reason to believe the
employer prohibits such communications.
If the debt collector knows the consumer has retained an
attorney to handle the debt, and can easily ascertain the
attorney’s name and address, all contacts must be with that
attorney, unless the attorney is unresponsive or agrees to allow
direct communication with the consumer.
Ceasing Communication with the Consumer
When a consumer refuses, in writing, to pay a debt or requests
that the debt collector cease further communication, the
collector must cease all further communication, except to
advise the consumer that:
•
The collection effort is being stopped.
•
Certain specified remedies ordinarily invoked may be
pursued or, if appropriate, that a specific remedy will be
pursued.
•
Another’s debts in isolated instances.
•
Its own debts under its own name.
•
Debts it originated and then sold but continues to service
(for example, mortgage and student loans).
Mailed notices from the consumer are official when they are
received by the debt collector.
•
Debts that were not in default when they were obtained.
Communicating with Third Parties
•
Debts that were obtained as security for a commercial
credit transaction (for example, accounts receivable
financing).
The only third parties that a debt collector may contact when
trying to collect a debt are:
•
Debts incidental to a bona fide fiduciary relationship or
escrow arrangement (for example, a debt held in the
institution’s trust department or mortgage loan escrow for
taxes and insurance).
•
The consumer.
•
The consumer’s attorney.
•
Debts regularly for other institutions to which it is related
by common ownership or corporate control.
•
A consumer reporting agency (if permitted by local law).
•
The creditor.
•
The creditor’s attorney.
•
The debt collector’s attorney.
Debt collectors that are not covered also include:
FDIC Compliance Manual — March 2014
VII–3.1
VII. Abusive Practices — FDCPA
The consumer or a court of competent jurisdiction may,
however, give the debt collector specific permission to contact
other third parties. In addition, a debt collector who is unable
to locate a consumer may ask a third party for the consumer’s
home address, telephone number and place of employment
(location information). The debt collector must give his or her
name and state that he or she is confirming or correcting
location information about the consumer. Unless specifically
asked, the debt collector may not name the collection firm or
agency or reveal that the consumer owes any debt.
No third party may be contacted more than once unless the
collector believes that the information from the first contact
was wrong or incomplete and that the third party has since
received better information, or unless the third party
specifically requests additional contact.
Contact with any third party by postcard, letter or telegram is
allowed only if the envelope or content of the communication
does not indicate the nature of the collector’s business.
Validation of Debts
The debt collector must provide the consumer with certain
basic information. If that information was not in the initial
communication and if the consumer has not paid the debt five
days after the initial communication, the following
information must be sent to the consumer in written form:
•
•
Use or threaten to use violence or other criminal means to
harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any
person.
•
Use obscene, profane, or other language which abuses the
hearer or reader.
•
Publish a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay
debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons
meeting the requirements of sections 603(f) or 604(3) of
the Act.
•
Advertise a debt for sale to coerce payment.
•
Annoy, abuse, or harass persons by calling repeatedly
their telephone number or allowing their telephones to
ring continually.
•
Make telephone calls without properly identifying oneself,
except as allowed to obtain location information.
False or Misleading Representations
A debt collector, in collecting a debt, may not use any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation. Specifically, a debt
collector may not:
•
Falsely represent or imply that he or she is vouched for,
bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any
state, including the use of any badge, uniform, or similar
identification.
•
Falsely represent the character, amount, or legal status of
the debt, or of any services rendered, or compensation he
or she may receive for collecting the debt.
Falsely represent or imply that he or she is an attorney or
that communications are from an attorney.
The amount of the debt;
•
The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
•
Notice that the consumer has 30 days to dispute the debt
before it is assumed to be valid;
•
•
Notice that upon such written dispute, the debt collector
will send the consumer a verification of the debt or a copy
of any judgment; and
•
Threaten to take any action which is not legal or intended.
•
Falsely represent or imply that nonpayment of any debt
will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or
the seizure, garnishment, attachment or sale of any
property or wages of any person, unless such action is
lawful and intended by the debt collector or creditor.
•
Falsely represent or imply that the sale, referral, or other
transfer of the debt will cause the consumer to lose a claim
or a defense to payment, or become subject to any practice
prohibited by the FDCPA.
•
Falsely represent or imply that the consumer committed a
crime or other conduct to disgrace the consumer.
•
Communicate, or threaten to communicate, false credit
information or information which should be known to be
false, including not identifying disputed debts as such.
•
Use or distribute written communications made to look
like or falsely represented to be documents authorized,
issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the
United States or any state if it would give a false
impression of its source, authorization, or approval.
•
Notice that if, within the 30-day period, the consumer
makes a written request for the name and address of the
original creditor, if it is different from the current creditor,
the debt collector will provide that information.
If, within the 30-day period, the consumer disputes in writing
any portion of the debt or requests the name and address of the
original creditor, the collector must stop all collection efforts
until he or she mails the consumer a copy of a judgment or
verification of the debt, or the name and address of the original
creditor, as applicable.
Prohibited Practices
Harassing or Abusive Practices
A debt collector in collecting a debt, may not harass, oppress,
or abuse any person.
Specifically, a debt collector may not:
VII–3.2
FDIC Compliance Manual — March 2014
VII. Abusive Practices — FDCPA
•
•
Use any false representation or deceptive means to collect
or attempt to collect a debt or to obtain information about
a consumer.
Fail to disclose in the initial written communication with
the consumer, and the initial oral communication if it
precedes the initial written communication, that the debt
collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any
information obtained will be used for that purpose. In
addition, the debt collector must disclose in subsequent
communications that the communication is from a debt
collector. (These disclosures do not apply to a formal
pleading made in connection with a legal action.)
•
Falsely represent or imply that accounts have been sold to
innocent purchasers.
•
Falsely represent or imply that documents are legal
process.
•
Use any name other than the true name of the debt
collector’s business, company, or organization.
•
Falsely represent or imply that documents are not legal
process or do not require action by the consumer.
•
Falsely represent or imply that he or she operates or is
employed by a consumer reporting agency.
Multiple Debts
If a consumer owes several debts that are being collected by
the same debt collector, payments must be applied according
to the consumer’s instructions. No payment may be applied to
a disputed debt.
Legal Actions by Debt Collectors
A debt collector may file a lawsuit to enforce a security
interest in real property only in the judicial district in which
the real property is located. Other legal actions may be brought
only in the judicial district in which the consumer lives or in
which the original contract creating the debt was signed.
Furnishing Certain Deceptive Forms
No one may design, compile and/or furnish any form which
creates the false impression that someone other than the
creditor (for example, a debt collector) is participating in the
collection of a debt.
Civil Liability
A debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of the
FDCPA is liable for:
•
Unfair Practices
•
A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means
to collect or attempt to collect a debt. Specifically, a debt
collector may not:
•
Collect any interest, fee, charge or expense incidental to
the principal obligation unless it was authorized by the
original debt agreement or is otherwise permitted by law.
•
Accept a check or other instrument postdated by more
than five days, unless he or she notifies the consumer, in
writing, of any intention to deposit the check or
instrument. That notice must be made not more than ten or
less than three business days before the date of deposit.
•
Solicit a postdated check or other postdated payment
instrument to use as a threat or to institute criminal
prosecution.
•
Deposit or threaten to deposit a postdated check or other
postdated payment instrument before the date on the check
or instrument.
•
Cause communication charges, such as those for collect
telephone calls and telegrams, to be made to any person by
concealing the true purpose of the communication.
•
Take or threaten to repossess or disable property when the
creditor has no enforceable right to the property or does
not intend to do so, or if, under law, the property cannot be
taken, repossessed or disabled.
•
Use a postcard to contact a consumer about a debt.
FDIC Compliance Manual — March 2014
•
Any actual damages sustained as a result of that failure;
Punitive damages as allowed by the court—
°
in an individual action, up to $1,000; or
°
in a class action, up to $1,000 for each named plaintiff
and an award to be divided among all members of the
class of an amount up to $500,000 or 1 percent of the
debt collector’s net worth, whichever is less;
Costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee in any such action.
In determining punitive damages, the court must consider the
nature, frequency and persistency of the violations and the
extent to which they were intentional. In a class action, the
court must also consider the resources of the debt collector and
the number of persons adversely affected.
Defenses
A debt collector is not liable for a violation if a preponderance
of the evidence shows it was not intentional and was the result
of a bona fide error that arose despite procedures reasonably
designed to avoid any such error. The collector is also not
liable if he or she, in good faith, relied on an advisory opinion
of the Federal Trade Commission even if the ruling is later
amended, rescinded, or determined to be invalid for any
reason.
Jurisdiction and Statute of Limitations
Action against debt collectors for violations of the FDCPA
may be brought in any appropriate U.S. district court or other
court of competent jurisdiction. The consumer has one year
VII–3.3
VII. Abusive Practices — FDCPA
from the date on which the violation occurred to start such as
action.
Administrative Enforcement
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are the primary
enforcement agency for the FDCPA. The various financial
regulatory agencies enforce the FDCPA for the institutions
they supervise. The CFPB, as directed by the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(Dodd-Frank Act), may issue substantive rules governing the
collection of consumer debts by debt collectors.
Relation to State Law
The FDCPA preempts state law only to the extent that a state
law is inconsistent with the FDCPA. A state law that is more
protective of the consumer is not considered inconsistent with
the FDCPA.
engaged in the institution’s collection activities and through
reviews of any written collection procedures, reciprocal
collection agreements, collection letters, dunning notices,
envelopes, scripts used by collection personnel, validation
notices, individual collection files, complaint files, and other
relevant records.
1. Determine if the institution is a debt collector under the
FDCPA.
2. Determine if the institution has established internal
procedures and controls to assure compliance with the
FDCPA.
3. If the institution has acted or is acting as a debt collector
under the FDCPA, determine if the institution has:
•
Communicated with the consumer or third parties in
any prohibited manner;
•
Furnished the written validation notice within the
required time period and otherwise complied with
applicable validation requirements;
•
Used any harassing, abusive, unfair or deceptive
collection practice prohibited by the FDCPA;
•
Collected any amount not expressly authorized by the
agreement creating the debt or by state law;
•
Applied all payments received as instructed and,
where no instruction was given, applied payments
only to undisputed debts; and
•
Filed suit in an authorized forum if the institution sued
to collect the debt.
Exemption for State Regulation
The FTC may exempt certain classes of debt collection
practices from the requirements of the FDCPA if the FTC has
determined that state laws impose substantially similar
requirements and that there is adequate provision for
enforcement.
Examination Objectives
The objectives of the examination are to:
1. Identify financial institutions that are debt collectors;
2. Determine the adequacy of the institution’s internal
procedures and controls to assure consistent compliance
with FDCPA; and
3. Determine if the institution complies with the
requirements of the FDCPA in collecting or attempting to
collect third-party consumer debts.
Examination Procedures
The following procedures are to be completed through
interviews with personnel knowledgeable about and directly
VII–3.4
References
15 USC §1692: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Federal Trade Commission Staff Commentary on the FDCPA
Job Aids
See Examination Checklist – Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act on the following page.
FDIC Compliance Manual — March 2014
VII. Abusive Practices — FDCPA
Examination Checklist—Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Yes
No
1. Is the institution aware of the circumstances in which the FDCPA applies and, as appropriate, has it
established internal procedures and controls to assure compliance with the FDCPA?
2. Has the institution acted as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA by either:
a. regularly attempting to collect defaulted consumer debts owed to others; or,
b. attempting to collect its own consumer debts in a name other than its own?
NOTE: If the answers to questions 2a and 2b are “No,” the institution has not acted as a debt
collector under the FDCPA and the examiner should not complete the remainder of the
checklist.
3. In attempting to collect consumer debts as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, did the institution:
a. communicate with the consumer or any third party in a prohibited manner?
b. adhere to the required debt validation procedure?
c. use any harassing, abusive, unfair or deceptive practice or means?
d. collect any more than authorized by the debt instrument or state law?
e. properly apply any payment received in the case of multiple debts owned by the same consumer?
f.
bring legal action only in a judicial district permitted under the FDCPA?
FDIC Compliance Manual — March 2014
VII–3.5
(This page intentionally left blank.)
VII–3.6
FDIC Compliance Manual — March 2014