Prepared by Sviatlana Liashchyna, Legal and Regulatory Compliance Attorney for LOGS Legal Network
The courts have issued numerous judicial interpretations related the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) since its enactment and many directly contradict each other. The 7th Circuit recently issued its opinion in Preston v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 18-3119, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020) finding printing "TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT" on a mailing envelope constitutes a violation of § 1692f(8) of the FDCPA which directly contradicts 5th and 8th circuits’ decisions allowing a "benign language" exception to that provision.
Prepared by Lucretia Scruggs, Esq. with Shapiro Pendergast & Hasty serving Georgia
In December 2016, when Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 was enacted, the mortgage industry worried about the increase in administrative work and the cost of noticing and keeping track of fees and expenses while a borrower was in bankruptcy. The rule appeared to be quite simple: the fees and costs the debtor incurred were to be noticed with the court within 180 days of their incurrence. There were already in place industry standards of what the usual fees would be, so no one truly believed that this would cause concerns or that many of the Post-Petition Fee Notices would be objected to. Additionally, the Note and/or Security Deed usually contain a provision that allows for the collection of bankruptcy post-petition fees. Only a few years later are we learning that this is not the case.
This blog post is provided for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice or used as a substitute for competent legal advice. By using this information, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationships between you and the author of this post.