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




HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES  | TEXAS CASE LAW |