1. What is the difference between a
creditor
and a collection agency?
-collection agency collects debts to others
(not its own debts)
-one of country's
largest was ICS
-we
litigated with them for about 5 years
-case
went to Supreme Court
-we
won; they paid in bull semen and title to country western bar
2. From a legal perspective, why does it
matter whether the consumer is being contacted by the creditor or a
collection
agency?
-federal law covers only collection agencies
-even though only
10% of all collections
-explain legislative history of FDCPA
-but Vermont
regulation applies to all collections
3. According to a 1974 study conducted
by David Caplovitz, what was the main reason why consumers defaulted on
loans?
-43% "loss of
income"
4. Did that change when he repeated the
study in 1989? How?
-"voluntary
overextension" was #1
-what does that
mean?
5. Besides defaulting consumers, whom
did
Caplovitz blame for the problem?
6. True or False: Under the
federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a collection agency may not
communicate
with anyone other than the consumer at any time for any purpose.
7. George owes money for a nifty flight
suit
he purchased but did not pay for. Ace collection agency, working
on behalf of the seller of the flight suit, is trying to find him. If
Ace contacts Dick,
his neighbor, trying to locate George, it may not
a. let Dick know George owes a debt
b. send a post card
c. use its name, Ace Collection Agency,
on an envelope
d. do any of the above
-1692b
8. Once Ace locates George, it may contact
him
a. at any hour of the day or night
b. even if he's represented by an attorney
and Ace knows it
c. at work, even though Ace knows George's
employer doesn't permit personal calls
d. Ace may not do any of the above
-1692c(a)(1)
9. You're the new general manager at Ace
and under pressure to increase collections. One of your employees
suggests
a couple of tactics that may help. Should you adopt them?
a. create a "wall of shame"; i.e., posting
in the newspaper a list of everyone who has failed to pay
1692d(3)
b. send out letters threatening to repossess
peoples' cars if they don't pay their debts 1692e(4)--can't threaten action you can't
legally take
c. send out letters threatening to sue
everyone who doesn't pay within a given period of time 1692e(5)--can't threaten action you don't
intend to take
d. send out letters that look like they're
from the government
1692e(1)
e. try to get the consumer to write a
post-dated check, then cash it early and threated to sue for fraud
1692e(10)
10. If George sends you a letter directing
you to cease communication about the
debt
a. you can ignore it
b. you cannot contact him for any reason
c. you can continue to contact him, but
only by mail
d. you may contact him to notify him
that
you're terminating future collection efforts
Questions 11-17 relate to the opinion of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
in Carbajal v. Capital One:
-"Arggh, what's in your wallet?"
11. How do the facts of this case differ
from those of more typical cases brought under the FDCPA?
12. According to the FDCPA, a debt collector
must send a "validation notice" to the debtor
a. in its initial communication with the
debtor
b. within five days of its initial communication
with the debtor
c. either in its initial communication
OR within five days of its initial communication
d. none of the above; there is no specifi
time requirement for the validation notice
-see next question
13. The validation notice must include
the following information
a. the amount of the debt
b. the name of the creditor
c. a statement that unless the debtor
disputes the debt's validity within 30 days, it will be assumed to be
valid
d. a statement that if the debtor disputes
the debt's validity, the collector will obtain verification of the debt
e. all of the above
-1692g
14. Did Capital One send a validation
notice
to the plaintiff?
-yes
15. Did the notice include the
statements
required by the FDCPA?
-yes
16. According to the plaintiff Carbajal,
what was the problem with the notice?
-was on back of notice, buried in fine print
17. How did the Court rule?
-agreed with
plaintiff (see * p. 2)
Questions 18-25 relate to the opinion of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California
in Joseph v. J.J. MacIntyre Companies.
18. Who was Ruby Joseph and how did she
find herself being contacted by a debt collector?
-physically disabled (but not "indigent")
woman
-incurred
debt of $2356.62 at San Francisco General Hospital
19. Did the defendant attempt to collect
interest on the debt owed by Ms. Joseph to the hospital?
-yes
20. Does the FDCPA permit the collection
of interest?
-yes, if permitted by underlying agreement
or law
-1692f(1)
21. How did the Court rule on this issue?
-For collection agency
-Calif. law
prohibits collection of interest if indigent, but she wasn't
22. Plaintiff claimed that agents of defandant
called her and failed to disclose that they represented a collection
agency
and failed to disclose the name of the agency; if proven true, is that
a violation of the FDCPA? What section?
23. In response to Plaintiff's allegation
that Defendant violated section 1692d(5), the court held that
a. the defendant can call up to three
times a day
b. the defendant can call only once a
day
c. the defendant can call as often as
it wishes as long as the content of the calls isn't outrageous
d. whether there is a violation
depends
on both the number of calls and the pattern of the calls
-see * p. 3
24. True or False: The Court
held that
since the Defendant was collecting on multiple debts, it could call
more
frequently than if it was calling on a single debt.
- def. argued since it was collecting 17
different debts, legal standard was different
-court said it was
no less annoying to consumer
25. What
standard did the Court of Appeals
say should be applied in determining whether consumers were likely to
be
deceived by the Defendant's practices--the "reasonable consumer"
standard
or a "less sophisticated" consumer
standard?
-despite the FTC policy
statement referring to "consumer acting reasonably"