Debt collection litigation NOT exempt from FDCPA—Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson
I just read the 4th circuit court of appeal 5/9/07 Opinion:
Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, No. 06-1458 (4th Cir.)
Many thanks to Ernest Paul Francis, Arlington, Virginia, attorney for Sayyed.
It’s a great decision, but don’t get too excited:
“… On remand, W&A may of course (1) contend that there were no statutory violations, or (2) avail itself of the § 1692k(c) defense by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that any violations were not intentional and “resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). W&A’s reliance on its client may well be relevant to that inquiry. But the district court erred in dismissing Sayyed’s claims outright on the basis of this concern. ...”
If an attorney should not be held liable for relying in pleadings on the client’s affidavit, where does it leave the debtor? What are the debtor’s remedies for being sued for an amount higher than the actual debt?
Discover is NOT subject to the FDCPA as it is the original creditor and exempt.
So, I conclude that the attorney DOES need to be liable.
Wolpoff & Abramson made false statements in the pleadings based on the information provided by Discover. If the court rules in favor of Sayyed, W&A has a claim against Discover. Presumably, W&A has an agreement with Discover requiring it to provide accurate information and holding Discover liable.
If the court does NOT hold W & A liable due to false information furnished by Discover, suing debtors for inflated amounts is effectively legalized and the FDCPA is preempted.
Am I missing something?
Posted by Christine on 06/12/2007 at 11:27 AM
Legal • Court - rulings - procedures • (0) Comments • Permalink
