Select Page

Mass. supreme court on filing collectcion lawsuits in inconvenient forums to obtain default judgments | Litigation against collectors, debt buyers and their attorneys | Litigation Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Mass. supreme court on filing collectcion lawsuits in inconvenient forums to obtain default judgments
"We reject the argument that an act or practice which is authorized by statute can never be an unfair or deceptive act..."
December 13, 2013
4:21 am
Avatar
christine
Admin
Forum Posts: 51
Member Since:
May 5, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

State ex rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp., 725 P. 2d 752 - Ariz: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. (1986)

... A Massachusetts court faced a similar argument in Schubach v. Household Finance Corp., 375 Mass. 133, 376 N.E.2d 140 (1978). In that case, a collection company was regularly obtaining default judgments against debtors by suing in inconvenient forums. When faced with charges under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, the company defended by claiming that its actions were contemplated by the commonwealth's venue statutes. The court stated, "We reject the argument that an act or practice which is authorized by statute can never be an unfair or deceptive 53*53 act...." 375 Mass. at 137-38, 376 N.E.2d at 142.

We agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that, depending upon the circumstances of a particular case, an act which appears to be within the bounds of one statute may be fraudulent or deceptive. Such is the case here. While the Arizona Home Solicitation and Referral Sales Act clearly contemplates delivery of goods within the cancellation period, A.R.S. ยง 44-5007, under the circumstances of this case, where there was evidence that the quick installation policy was specifically designed to inhibit cancellation, that the salesmen were instructed to inform consumers that the cancellation period was only for "those folks whose signatures just don't mean a thing" and that the installation required cutting a hole in the roof of the consumer's home, the jury could have found that this quick installation scheme was a wilful violation of the consumer fraud act.

 

Forum Timezone: America/Phoenix

Most Users Ever Online: 46

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

blastfrompast: 1

desert316: 1

colorfinger: 1

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 9

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 2

Forums: 15

Topics: 45

Posts: 52

Newest Members:

Kerri, colorfinger, CoitisUMidland, blastfrompast, gmariel13, jawllms, desert316, Garyt, toman67, christine

Administrators: christine: 51