Lawsuit: Law Firm’s Collection Letter Not FDCPA-Compliant

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Shapiro, Van Ess & Sherman, LLP is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it sent an Arizona woman a debt collection letter that failed to comply with certain provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The suit first takes issue with the following statement in the letter: “Because of interest, late charges and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater.” According to the complaint, the defendant is obligated under the FDCPA to clearly communicate to the plaintiff the amount of her alleged debt. “By failing to state the amount of the Debt as of the date [the defendant] sent its letter, [the defendant] failed to meaningfully convey the correct amount of the Debt to the consumer,” the complaint reads.

Furthermore, the suit argues the debt collector miscommunicated the plaintiff’s rights in the validation notice it was required to provide since it allegedly neglected to notify the consumer that he or she may request the address in addition to the name of the original creditor. The defendant also failed to expressly state that it will “obtain and mail the consumer verification of the debt,” the complaint says. Even further, the suit says the defendant falsely informed the plaintiff that foreclosure efforts must cease if she disputes the debt, when the FDCPA specifies that debt collection efforts, which do not include non-judicial foreclosures, must be suspended in the event of a dispute.

The lawsuit takes further issue with the following statement in the letter:

“PURSUANT TO THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THIS OFFICE MAY BE DEEMED TO BE A DEBT COLLECTOR. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.”

According to the complaint, the letter unlawfully failed to state that the defendant is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. “Certainly,” it continues, “if [the defendant] purports to be unsure whether it is a debt collector, the least sophisticated consumer would not understand whether [the defendant] is, in fact, a debt collector.”