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 DayScammers love summer and they're not taking any time off! Today kicks off the FTC's summer safety series. As you think about what summer holds, here are some things to keep in mind. Click here for more. GM recalls 285,000 Buicks, Cadillacs, Chevrolets and GMC vehiclesGeneral Motors is recalling 285,622 model year 2021 Buick Envisions, Cadillac CT4s, CT5s, Escalades, Escalade ESVs, Chevrolet Tahoes, Corvettes, Suburbans, and GMC Yukons & Yukon XLs. Your MoneyIf you or someone you know or work with is having difficulty paying their rent, financial assistance may be available. The Emergency Rental Assistance program helps renters and landlords by providing money for housing costs through organizations in your community. Not sure where to start? The answers to some common questions about Emergency Rental Assistance can help you learn: How to apply for emergency rental assistance? What emergency rental assistance covers? If you are eligible for emergency rental assistance? How to show that you are eligible? Click here for more. For the LawyersPlaintiff’s subjective interpretation of a debt collection letter insufficient to confer FDCPA standing. Defendant United Holding Group, LLC purchased a debt owed by the plaintiff, and hired defendant Eastpoint Recovery Group, Inc. (Eastpoint) to help collect it. Eastpoint sent the plaintiff a letter identifying the account and stating: The account listed above has been assigned to this agency for collection. We are a professional collection agency attempting to collect a debt. Any information we obtain will be used as a basis to enforce collection of this debt. (Emphasis supplied by the court). Plaintiff filed a claim under the FDCPA, alleging that the letter was misleading and that the inclusion of the word “enforce” made the letter threatening and confusing to him. In granting Eastpoint’s motion to dismiss, Southern District of Florida noted that “confusion – on its own – is not an injury in fact.” Rather, the plaintiff’s “subjective interpretation of the word ‘enforce’ did not result in a concrete and particularized injury necessary to confer Article III standing.” Further, the court held that even if the plaintiff had suffered a concrete injury, he lacked standing because the alleged harm — fear and emotional distress based on the use of the word “enforce” in the collection letter —was not traceable to the claimed violations of the FDCPA. Rather, the court found that the plaintiff’s distress was caused by his default on his debt and concern over the consequences. Preisler v. Eastpoint Recovery Grp., (S.D. Fla. May 25, 2021), Click here for more. |
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |