law-FDCPA | Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act | Texas Debt Collection Act | unfair debt
collection practices | DPTA violations | Credit Card Debt Suit Case Law from the Houston Courts of
Appeals | Texas fair debt collection statute | state and federal regulation of debt collectors | debt
collection law suits |
FDCPA DEBT VALIDATION COMPLAINT OVERRULED
Weissman v. Unifund CCR Partners (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 2, 2009)(Yates)
(debt collection suit, FDCPA claim fails)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Brock Yates
Before Justices Brock Yates, Seymore and Boyce
14-07-00863-CV Janice M. Weissman v. Unifund CCR Partners Assignee of Discover
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 3 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Linda Storey
Moreover, even if Weissman had preserved this issue for appeal, the record reflects that
Unifund provided her with sufficient information to satisfy an FDCPA debt validation
request. Debt validation under the FDCPA requires "nothing more than the debt collector
confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is
owed.” Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999). Here, Weissman admits
that she received Unifund’s petition, which included documents showing Unifund’s demand
that Weissman pay the past due amount that Discover claimed was owed on Weissman’s
account. The attachments to Unifund’s subsequent pleadings, several of which Weissman
responded to, included copies of monthly credit card statements and affidavits that added to
that documentation substantially.[1] Thus, even if Weissman preserved this issue for our
review, the record reflects that Unifund provided sufficient documentation to satisfy her
FDCPA debt validation request. See id. We overrule Weissman’s second issue.
DEBT COLLECTOR HELD LIABLE UNDER THE FDCPA FOR BRINGING SUIT TO
CONFIRM ARB AWARD PAST THE 1-YR SOL APPLICABLE TO ACTION TO
CONFIRM AWARD
Turning the tables on debt collectors: FDCPA CLAIM SUCCEEDS: Third-party debt
collector brought suit to confirm arbitration award entered under the FAA in a state court after
the one-year statute of limitations had passed (it later non-suited), and did not answer
discovery requests when subsequently sued for violating the Federal Debt Collection
Practices Act in federal court. See
Summary Judgment granted in FDCPA suit based on deemed admissions. Debt collector
had failed to answer requests for admissions and other discovery and had thus admitted
violation of federal law. Magistrate judge denied Debt Collector's Motion to Withdraw
Deemed Admissions in FDCPA action, and Motion to Extend Dispositive Motions
Deadline.
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
Before Justices Fowler, Frost and Seymore
14-07-00375-CV Brenda J. Branch v. Hudson & Keyse, L.L.C. Assignee of Chase Manhattan Bank
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN TEXAS COURTS | INDEX TO HOUSTON CASE LAW PAGES |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE