Case Law Updates
SMITH V. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
The plaintiff alleged that Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (“SPS”) violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e) by providing her with 10 “subsequent communications” stating “This is an attempt to collect a debt. All information obtained will be used for that purpose.” and did not state that the “communication was from a debt collector.”
State Law Updates
New Hampshire bill HB-1687 amends provisions related to the retail installment sales of motor vehicles, small, title, and payday loan provisions.
Another state's bill SB-314 provides a rebuttable presumption that an individual is not engaged in the business of a mortgage banker, broker, servicer, or originator if the individual is not involved in more than three (3) loans in any consecutive twelve (12) month period.
FDCPA: "Mini-Miranda" Notifications
BY SVIATLANA LIASHCHYNA
All foreclosure law firms provide “mini-Miranda” disclosures in all their written and oral communications with a customer. The firms provide these disclosures to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requirements and contractual requirements; however, the FDCPA is not clear whether it applies to the foreclosure law firms. Considering the judicial interpretation differences, firms are left with the question of whether their “mini-Miranda” disclosure should state “the firm MAY be deemed to be a debt collector” or “the firm IS deemed to be a debt collector.”
Although certain jurisdictions have not yet addressed whether the actions completed by law firms during the foreclosure proceedings fall under the FDCPA requirements, the courts that have rendered their opinion on this matter mostly considered the following:
Sharing trends and best practices to help you improve your processes and maximize your profitability.