Posts from March 2017.

The West Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee and the West Virginia Senate recently approved amendments to the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"), West Virginia Code §§ 46A-1-101 et seq, which was last amended in 2015. While the original versions of the senate bills sought to make the WVCCPA more similar to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., the committee substitute of S.B. 563 includes only minor amendments. Among other things, the proposed amendments:

  • Clarify how notice of attorney representation must ...
Posted in: FDCPA, West Virginia

On March 16, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court denied motions for rehearing and/or clarification filed by petitioners Lewis Brook Bartram, the Plantation at Ponte Vedra, and Gideon M.G. Gratsiani. All three petitioners requested the Florida Supreme Court reconsider or clarify its landmark November 3, 2016 opinion in Bartram v. U.S. Bank, N.A., SC14-1266, 2016 WL 6538647. The Florida Supreme Court's opinion in Bartram holds that the involuntary dismissal of a prior foreclosure action, be it with or without prejudice, does not prevent the filing of a subsequent foreclosure action ...

On March 1st, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal affirmatively held that a mortgage holder who fails to prove its standing to foreclose is not liable to a defendant borrower for prevailing party attorney's fees. The Fitzgerald holding is succinct but immensely significant: "[b]ecause [the Borrower] successfully obtained a judgment below that the [Plaintiff] lacked standing to enforce the subject mortgage and note against her . . . no contract existed between the [Plaintiff] and [Borrower] that would allow [the Borrower] to invoke the reciprocity provisions of Section ...

Since Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016), the consumer finance industry has continued to refine what it means to allege a concrete injury in fact and to meet Article III case and controversy requirements where statutory rights are alleged to have been violated. In Spokeo, the Supreme Court made clear that a "concrete" injury is necessary to confer Article III standing yet, the palpability of the injury alone does not dictate whether the injury is sufficiently concrete to confer standing--leaving room for "concrete" yet intangible injuries as a basis for ...

Posted in: Eleventh Circuit
Jump to Page
Arrow icon Top

Contact Us

We use cookies to improve your website experience, provide additional security, and remember you when you return to the website. This website does not respond to "Do Not Track" signals. By clicking "Accept," you agree to our use of cookies. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.