Author Topic: FDCPA Attorney & 1692c(2)  (Read 1303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mech85

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 146
FDCPA Attorney & 1692c(2)
« on: August 28, 2014 10:38:54 PM »
I see advertisements from FDCPA attorneys that say a CA must stop contacting the consumer once they are aware the attorney is involved.

They are technically bankruptcy attorneys per their disclosures, but they don't represent the consumer in terms of resolving or negotiating the actual debt. They may ask for it to be extinguished as part of a settlement, but their focus is on pursuing the FDCPA claim. Once the claim is resolved, their job is done whether or not the underlying debt survives.

Quote from: FDCPA 1692c
(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer; or

I read that as the attorney must be representing the consumer for the debt itself, and not just in an FDCPA action. Am I correct, or does this statute also apply to these attorneys?

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3476
Re: FDCPA Attorney & 1692c(2)
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2014 10:44:13 PM »
If your attorney is representing you for violations of the FDCPA, it doesn't matter if the attorney is a bk attorney.  What matters is why he's representing you.

Mech85

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 146
Re: FDCPA Attorney & 1692c(2)
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2014 10:56:45 PM »
If your attorney is representing you for violations of the FDCPA, it doesn't matter if the attorney is a bk attorney.  What matters is why he's representing you.

Right, but if the reason he's representing you isn't to deal with the actual debt, does 1692c(2) apply?

If he's retained to go after a collector who threatened to take grandma's medication away if she didn't pay her newspaper subscription, then he likely isn't representing her about the debt itself.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3476
Re: FDCPA Attorney & 1692c(2)
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2014 11:20:11 PM »
Right, but if the reason he's representing you isn't to deal with the actual debt, does 1692c(2) apply?

If he's retained to go after a collector who threatened to take grandma's medication away if she didn't pay her newspaper subscription, then he likely isn't representing her about the debt itself.

The newspaper subscription is a debt.  Anything in connection with a collection of a debt is under the FDCPA.  His threat to take away her medication for not paying the newspaper subscription debt is in violation of the FDCPA.   He can't take away her medication for not paying a newspaper subscription.

Check out 1692e(5), and e(10).

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3476
Re: FDCPA Attorney & 1692c(2)
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2014 11:49:26 PM »
I'll add that the FDCPA has nothing to do with the validity of the underlying debt.  Unless a debt is not owed (identity theft, already paid or settled), an FDCPA attorney does not argue whether or not the consumer owes the debt.  He argues the tactics of the debt collector to collect the debt. 

coltfan1972

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6532
  • My Shoes Cost More Than Your House
Re: FDCPA Attorney & 1692c(2)
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2014 01:15:37 AM »
When I worked insurance claims the personal injury attorneys never represented the person on their property damage.    They would just fax me a letter telling me what part of the claim they represented the person on and then I was free to settle and discuss anything they were not represented on.   

Like Bellebutton said, it does not matter what kind of attorney they are, just what they scope of their representation is. 

LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom- 05-17-2013 | 10:11 AM --

JONESBORO, Ark. - A federal judge in Arkansas on May 15 ruled that dismissal of a consumer's lawsuit against a debt collector is not proper because although the consumer posted messages on a website "in an odious manner," valid First Amendment concerns exist (Brandon Scroggin v. Credit Bureau of Jonesboro Inc., No. 12-0128, E.D. Ark.; 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69070).