| Volume 135 Number 4 |
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends
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 Day
Are over-eager salespeople still calling you? Maybe you forget to sign up for the National Do Not Call List. Click here to keep your name off of their lists Click here for more.
EPA wrongfully approved use of bee-killing pesticides, judge rules
While the EPA was telling the public there was essentially no good reason for farmers to use a chemical that the agency had already approved, an increasing amount of research from other organizations found that the mass spraying of neonics has had grave consequences. Research has pinpointed the widespread spraying of neonic pesticides as a major factor in the world’s declining population of honey bees and other pollinators. Federal Judge Maxine Chesney ruled May 8 that the EPA violated federal laws protecting wildlife when the agency approved 59 neonic pesticides between 2007 and 2012. Chesney writes in her decision that the Endangered Species act requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Services to ensure that none of its decisions pose harm to endangered animals. “Here, the EPA concedes it has not consulted either said agency nor made a ‘no effect’ determination,” Chesney wrote.
Click here for more.
Your Money
8 Social Security rules you need to know: Rule No. 1: Your base benefits are determined by your 35 highest-income years. Rule No. 2: Social Security retirement benefits come in three flavors. Rule No. 3: You can't get both spousal and retirement benefits. Rule No. 4: Taking benefits early will cost you forever. Rule No. 5: Claiming your benefits late results in larger monthly checks. Rule No. 6: Working while receiving Social Security benefits may reduce your benefit checks. Rule No. 7: Social Security benefits are capped. Rule No. 8: Your Social Security benefits may be taxed. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Filing proof of claim in bankruptcy for a time-barred debt does not violate FDCPA. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that filing a bankruptcy proof of claim on time-barred debt does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), thereby resolving a circuit split on the issue. The Court held that such a proof of claim is not false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable because a "claim" under the bankruptcy code includes any right to payment even if the right is unenforceable. The Court distinguished filing a civil case on time-barred debt, which lower courts have found violates the FDCPA, because bankruptcy court offers protections to consumers that are unavailable in civil cases. Court found it "reasonably clear" that filing the proof of claim on time-barred debt in bankruptcy was not "false," "deceptive," or "misleading" under the FDCPA. This decision protects FDCPA defendants from claims arising out of conduct during a bankruptcy, but leaves unresolved the question of whether suing on such a claim outside of bankruptcy is actionable under the FDCPA. The Court noted, however, that a civil suit is very different from a bankruptcy proceeding where the debtor initiates the bankruptcy proceeding and a knowledgeable trustee is available. Midland Funding, LLC, v. Johnson (2017). Click here for more.