The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Subscribe to the Newsletter Helpful Links Texas Consumer Complaint Center Credit Reports and Identity Theft Your Guide to Small Claims Court Contact Us 1-713-743-2168 |
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the DayHomeowner's insurance covers much more than you might think. But insurance is a contract and you must read it carefully. Was your laptop stolen out of your car? Read you policy, you may be covered for this loss. Twitter's Security ProblemIf you were paying close attention to Twitter on Tuesday, you may have noticed an alarming tweet from AP (the popular news source). According to the tweet, there was an emergency at the White House. Panic set in throughout the Internet, as writers for AP quickly attempted let other users know that the tweet wasn't real. Sign That You're Ready to RetireAre you counting down the days to retirement? Your MoneyWhat's it worth to reduce your spending?
For the LawyersDefendant in FDCPA case does not have to show bad faith to recover attorney’s fees. The United States Supreme Court held that successful defendants in civil unfair debt collection claims can be awarded attorney fees and costs without a showing that the plaintiff brought the claim in bad faith. The case involved a debtor who sued to recover from a debt collector that sent a fax to her workplace. The action, she argued, violated the law’s provision barring debt collectors from contacting debtors’ employers.
After the debt collector was found not to have violated the Act, it sought and was awarded $4,500 in costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), which provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party.”
The debtor appealed, arguing that under the FDCPA, costs can only be awarded “[o]n a finding by the court that an action [was] brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.”
But in a an opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the language of the FDCPA does not conflict with, and therefore does not displace, a district court’s discretion to award costs under Rule 54(d)(1).
|
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |