Debt Collection


by Tom Canary Tom Canary

You are collecting debt in Kentucky and discover that the defendant has passed away.  What can you do to collect the debt from the decedent’s estate, what is the time period to get that done, and what do you do if the estate disallows your claim? Read more

Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. – What Does It Mean For You?

by Tom Canary Tom Canary

When the Hunstein decision(s) (see citations below) first came out, it caused shock waves through the collection industry.  Taken on its face, no debt collection entity would be able to use any third-party vendor to perform any tasks if the transmission of what could be deemed personal information were sent in connection with the service to be performed.  While the case had to do with a mailing service used by the debt collector, its application could spread to skip tracing services, service of process vendors and other service providers essential to debt collectors, both large and small. Read more

Change to the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act

by Riley Rodgers Riley Rodgers

By Riley Rodgers

The West Virginia General Assembly recently enacted positive changes to the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). The new amendment requires a consumer to notify the creditor of an alleged violation and permit the creditor a chance to correct before any action may be brought pursuant to the WVCCPA. Further, there are now codified factors the court must examine in awarding any attorney fees. Highlights of the newly enacted changes are summarized as follows: Read more

Governor Mike DeWine Signs Ohio Senate Bill 13, Shortening Ohio’s Statute of Limitations

by Michael Lewis Michael Lewis

On March 16, 2021, Governor Mike DeWine signed Ohio Senate Bill 13, shortening Ohio’s statute of limitations on a variety of claims.  While the impact of the bill on numerous causes of action is widespread, of particular note is the impact on contract-based claims. Effective June 14, 2021, Ohio will reduce the statute of limitations for claims premised on written contracts from eight years to six years, and for claims premised on oral contracts from six years to four years.    Read more

Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions Releases Emergency Guidance on Prohibited Debt Collection Practices

by James Gollnick James Gollnick

On April 13, 2020, The Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (“WI DFI”) released a guide titled “Emergency Guidance on Prohibited Debt Collection Practices,” along with a cautionary, interpretive letter issued from the WI DFI to a debt collector meant to serve as an example of impermissible practices.  The perceived intent of the guide is to encourage debt collectors to act reasonably during the current pandemic, and also to warn of the debt collection practices that are prohibited by the Wisconsin Consumer Act. Read more

Disabled Veterans Get Automatic Discharge of Federal Student Loans

by Stacie Hackel Snow Stacie Hackel Snow

After more than a year of urging by Democrats and Attorneys General from over 51 states and territories[1] (including Ohio Attorney General David Yost)[2], and more than a month after the introduction of a bi-partisan bill called the Federally Requiring Earned Education-Debt Discharges for Veterans Act, 100% disabled veterans will have their federal student loans fully discharged.[3]   Due to the combined efforts, on August 21, 2019, President Trump issued an Executive Memorandum directing the Secretaries of Education and Veteran Affairs to create a more streamlined process for Totally and Permanently Disabled Veterans to obtain forgiveness of their student loans.[4] Read more

Bill Reducing Ohio’s Statute of Limitations Raises Concerns for Creditors

by Michael Lewis Michael Lewis

Introduced May 21, Ohio H.B. 251[1] has been referred to the House’s Civil Justice Committee. This bill is essentially a re-introduction of the previously withdrawn H.B. No. 694 from May 2018.[2] H.B. 694 was withdrawn from committee consideration in early December 2018. KWA previously reported on this in January.[3]

H.B. 251 would amend R.C. 2305.06 and R.C. 2305.07 by reducing the statute of limitation on written contracts from eight (8) years to three (3) years and from six (6) years to three (3) years on non-written contracts. Section 4 of the bill mandates for written or non-written contracts that, “the period of limitations for causes of action would be three years from the bill’s effective dates, or the expiration of the period of limitations that was in effect prior to the bill’s effective dates, whichever occurs first.” Read more

Ohio House Bill 694 Proposes Shortening of Statute of Limitations

by Stacie Hackel Snow Stacie Hackel Snow

Creditors should keep a watchful eye on the state capital this new year, as there may be a significant updates to Ohio Revised Codes §2305.06 and 2305.07.  On May 22, 2018, Rep. George Lang introduced House Bill 694, which proposes to shorten the statute of limitations for all contracts.  Co-sponsors of the bill include: Rep. Reineke, Rep. Riedel, Rep. Romanchuk, and Rep. Becker. Read more

Judge Issues Final Ruling In CFPB V. WWR

by Jessica Lamoreux Jessica Lamoreux

Judge Nugent issued his final ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Weltman, Weinberg, & Reis Co., LPA on July 25, 2018. This decision was a big win for Weltman and the creditors’ bar generally. In this case, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) argued that Weltman violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by sending letters to debtors on its letterhead, under the theory that the letters constituted an implicit representation that an attorney had been meaningfully involved in the file, when in fact no attorney had been so involved. The Court held that Weltman did not violate the FDCPA in sending demand letters on its letterhead because attorneys were meaningfully involved in the handling of the files on which letters were sent. Read more

Jury Makes Findings in CFPB v. WWR

by Jessica Lamoreux Jessica Lamoreux

The case brought against Weltman, Weinberg, & Reis (“WWR”) by the Consumer Federal Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) moved one step closer to resolution, if not clarity, this month. Senior U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent will issue a verdict after considering the jury’s conclusions of fact, which were returned on two questions:

  • Did WWR’s initial demand letters contain “false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means”? The jury concluded that they did.
  • Did the CFPB prove that WWR’s attorneys were not meaningfully involved in the debt collection process? The jury concluded that it did not.

Read more