Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Medical Recovery Services, LLC (MRS), a licensed collection agency, appeals from the district court’s order affirming default judgments entered by the magistrate court. Each Respondent’s account indebtedness was assigned to MRS. MRS filed suit to recover payment from each Respondent and also sought $350 in attorney fees from each, based on a contractual provision. None of the Respondents answered the complaints filed by MRS, so MRS filed for default judgments to be entered in each case. The magistrate court entered default judgments as to all Respondents but granted attorney fees in amounts less than the $350 that MRS was requesting under the contracts. MRS asserted that the magistrate erred in awarding attorney fees in the amount of the principal owed by the Respondents for medical services, as opposed to $350, which was the minimum amount that each Respondent contracted to pay. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Medical Recovery Services v. Strawn" on Justia Law

The issue this appeal presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review centered on an agreement for the sale of a residential property and a subsequent lease and repurchase agreement, specifically whether the transactions collectively gave rise to an equitable mortgage, violated consumer protection statutes, or contravened its decision in "In re Opinion No. 26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law," (139 N.J. 323 (1995)). In 2007, defendant Barbara Felton faced foreclosure proceedings with respect to her unfinished, uninhabitable home and the land on which it was situated. Felton and plaintiff Tahir Zaman, a licensed real estate agent, entered into a written contract for the sale of the property. A week later, at a closing in which neither party was represented by counsel, Felton and Zaman entered into two separate agreements: a lease agreement under which Felton became the lessee of the property, and an agreement that gave her the option to repurchase the property from Zaman at a substantially higher price than the price for which she sold it. For more than a year, Felton remained on the property, paying no rent. She did not exercise her right to repurchase. Zaman filed suit, claiming that he was the purchaser in an enforceable land sale agreement, and that he therefore was entitled to exclusive possession of the property and to damages. Felton asserted numerous counterclaims, alleging fraud, slander of title, violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and violations of other federal and state consumer protection statutes. She claimed that the parties’ transactions collectively comprised an equitable mortgage and constituted a foreclosure scam, entitling her to relief under several theories. She further contended that the transactions were voidable by virtue of an alleged violation of "In re Opinion No. 26." A jury rendered a verdict in Zaman’s favor with respect to the question of whether Felton knowingly sold her property to him. The trial court subsequently conducted a bench trial and rejected Felton’s remaining claims, including her contention that the transactions gave rise to an equitable mortgage and her allegation premised upon In re Opinion No. 26. An Appellate Division panel affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Appellate Division’s determination. The Court affirmed the jury’s determination that Felton knowingly sold her property to Zaman. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the trial court and Appellate Division's decisions that Felton had no claim under the CFA, that this case did not implicate "In re Opinion No. 26," and that Felton’s remaining claims were properly dismissed. The Court reversed, however, the portion of the Appellate Division’s opinion that affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Felton’s claim that the parties’ agreements constituted a single transaction that gave rise to an equitable mortgage, adopting an eight-factor standard for the determination of an equitable mortgage set forth by the United States Bankruptcy Court in "O’Brien v. Cleveland," (423 B.R. 477 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010)). The case was remanded to the trial court for application of that standard to this case, and, in the event that the trial court concludes that an equitable mortgage was created by the parties, for the adjudication of two of Felton’s statutory claims based on alleged violations of consumer lending laws, as well as several other claims not adjudicated by the trial court. View "Zaman v. Felton" on Justia Law

Lillian Lewellen brought an action against Chad Franklin National Auto Sales North, LLC (National) and its owner, Chad Franklin, for fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful merchandising practices under the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act. A jury awarded Lewellen actual damages of $25,000, assessed jointly and severally against both defendants. The jury also awarded Lewellen $1 million in punitive damages against Franklin and National on both counts. Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 510.265, the circuit court reduced the punitive damages awards against Franklin and National to $500,000 and $539,050, respectively. Lewellen appealed her punitive damages award, claiming that her constitutional right to trial by jury was violated when the trial court reduced the punitive damages award on her fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Franklin. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in all respects except for the portion applying section 510.265 to the punitive damages award assessed against Franklin for fraudulent misrepresentation, holding that the mandatory reduction of Lewellen’s punitive damages award against Franklin under section 510.265 violated Lewellen’s right to a trial by jury. View "Lewellen v. Franklin" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the interest rates applicable to pawnbroker repurchase agreements are governed by the pawnbroker interest rate statute or the usury statute or whether these agreements are regulated at all. Defendant-pawnbroker entered into five separate repurchase transactions with Plaintiff pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to sell personal property items for Defendant and to hold those items subject to Plaintiff’s right to repurchase them. After a dispute over the fees Defendant charged Plaintiff to secure the right to repurchase those items, Plaintiff brought this action claiming, inter alia, that Defendant’s actions violated the pawnbroker interest rate statute. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the rate limits set forth in the pawnbroker interest rate statute do not apply to repurchase transactions. The district court certified questions of law to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) the pawnbroker interest rate statute does not govern the rates that pawnbrokers may charge in connection with repurchase agreements; and (2) the interest rates applicable to pawnbroker repurchase agreements are governed by the usury statute. View "Gilmore v. Pawn King, Inc." on Justia Law

Section 1692g(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that a debt collector’s collection activities and communications “not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.” In this case, Plaintiff, a “consumer” within the meaning of the FDCPA, incurred a debt, which Defendant, a “debt collector,” was retained to collect. Approximately one month after Plaintiff received a collection letter sent by Defendant, Plaintiff sued, alleging that Defendant had violated the FDCPA. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, concluding, inter alia, that the collection letter violated section 1692g as a matter of law. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) for FDCPA purposes, a collection letter is to be viewed from the perspective of the hypothetical unsophisticated consumer; and (2) the effect of the collection letter on the unsophisticated consumer in this case would be to confuse, and therefore, the letter violated section 1692g. View "Pollard v. Law Office of Mandy L. Spaulding " on Justia Law

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint alleging that Defendants fraudulently marketed and sold debt-related services, failed to provide those services, and retained money as upfront fees in violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a); the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. 310; and the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, 12 C.F.R. 1015. The FTC also sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and provided more than 1,000 pages of exhibits. Defendants sought to stay proceedings, asserting that a criminal investigation had been launched into their business activities, as evidenced by a raid conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that resulted in seizure of records they claim were necessary to defend against the FTC’s allegations. The district court denied the motion; the FTC and Defendants entered into a stipulated preliminary injunction. Defendants later renewed the motion for a stay, claiming that they were unable to access critical records. Without explanation, the district court denied the motion and later granted the FTC’s motion for summary judgment, ordering Defendants to jointly pay restitution in the amount of $5,706,135.48 to injured consumers. The Sixth circuit affirmed, finding clear evidence of the violations. View "Fed. Trade Comm'n v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants–Appellants Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., and J.M. Hollister LLC, d/b/a Hollister Co. (collectively, Abercrombie) appealed several district court orders holding that Hollister clothing stores violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff–Appellee Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (CCDC) is a disability advocacy organization in Colorado. In 2009, CCDC notified Abercrombie that Hollister stores at two malls in Colorado violated the ADA. Initial attempts to settle the matter were unsuccessful, and this litigation followed. Abercrombie took it upon itself to correct some barriers plaintiff complained of: it modified Hollister stores by lowering sales counters, rearranging merchandise to ensure an unimpeded path of travel for customers in wheelchairs, adding additional buttons to open the adjacent side doors, and ensuring that the side doors were not blocked or locked. However, one thing remained unchanged: a stepped, porch-like structure served as the center entrance at many Hollister stores which gave the stores the look and feel of a Southern California surf shack. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment: affirming the court's denial of Abercrombie's summary judgment motion and certification of a class. However, the Court reversed the district court's partial grant, and later full grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, and vacated the court's permanent injunction: "each of the district court’s grounds for awarding the Plaintiffs summary judgment [were] unsupportable. It was error to impose liability on the design of Hollister stores based on 'overarching aims' of the ADA. It was also error to impose liability based on the holding that the porch as a 'space' must be accessible. Finally, it was error to hold that the porch must be accessible because it is the entrance used by a 'majority of people.'" View "CO Cross-Disability Coalition, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et al" on Justia Law

In anticipation of the opening of the University of South Carolina's new basketball arena, the University of South Carolina and the University of South Carolina Gamecock Club distributed a brochure to high-level Gamecock Club members. The brochure offered the opportunity to purchase premium seating including a number of amenities for basketball games and other events held at the arena. The brochure offered members the opportunity to purchase these tickets over a "five year term." Members were to pay $5,000 per seat in the first year and $1,500 per seat each year in years two through five. Appellants claimed that Athletic Department employees promised Appellants that, after year five, they would only have to maintain their Gamecock Club membership and pay the face value of season tickets to retain these premium seats. Appellants accepted the University's offer and made the required payments for years one through five. After the fifth year, the University contacted Appellants and requested a $1,500 payment per seat for the sixth year of premium seating. Appellants brought an action against the University alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance. After discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial judge denied Appellants' motion and granted the University's motion, finding that due to the absence of a written contract the statute of frauds barred Appellants' claims. The Supreme Court concluded the statute of frauds applied in the first instance, but that a question of fact existed concerning the question of equitable estoppel, rendering summary judgment inappropriate.View "Springob v. University of South Carolina " on Justia Law

When Frances O'Neill arranged for her mother, Elise Hopkins, to become a resident of Manahawkin Convalescent Center, she decided to pay Manahawkin's bills from Hopkins' Social Security benefits, rather than arranging for those benefits to be directly paid to the facility. When her mother was admitted to the nursing home, O'Neill signed a "Rehabilitation and Nursing Home Admission Agreement" which designated O'Neill as the "Responsible Party" for purposes of processing her mother's bills, and set forth remedies in case of a default of that obligation. Following Hopkins' death, Manahawkin demanded in writing that O'Neill pay a balance due on her mother's account. It ultimately filed a collection action against her. In a counterclaim, O'Neill asserted various causes of action, including claims based on the Nursing Home Act (NHA), the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA). After the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the collection action, O'Neill reasserted her NHA, CFA and TCCWNA claims and sought class certification, which the trial court denied. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing O'Neill's claims and construing the Admission Agreement to impose no obligation on O'Neill to devote her personal funds to her mother's care. The trial court therefore deemed the Admission Agreement to conform to the NHA, and dismissed O'Neill's remaining claims. The Appellate Division affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Admission Agreement met the requirements of the NHA, and that Manahawkin accordingly committed no unlawful act within the meaning of the CFA. Because Manahawkin's Admission Agreement imposed no requirements on O'Neill that contravened the NHA, and neither the Admission Agreement nor Manahawkin's collection complaint gave rise to a cause of action under the CFA or the TCCWNA, dismissal of O'Neill's claims was proper. "However, nursing homes and their counsel should ensure that each party's rights and remedies are clearly reflected in contracts and communications between facilities and individuals who arrange payment on a resident's behalf." View "Manahawkin Convalescent v. O’Neill" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington certified a question of Washington law to the Washington Supreme Court. This lawsuit involved two consolidated suits. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), chapter 19.86 RCW, and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. sections 1692-1692p. These claims were based in part on plaintiffs' assertion that Midland Funding's business arrangements and debt collection processes violated the WCAA. The questions the federal court raised were: (1) Does the definition of "collection agency" in RCW 19.16.1 00(2) include a person who purchases claims that are owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another, undertakes no activity on said delinquent consumer account but rather contracts with an affiliated collection agency to collect the purchased claims, and is the named plaintiff in a subsequent collection lawsuit for said purchased claims?; and (2) Can a company file lawsuits in Washington on delinquent consumer accounts without being licensed as a collection agency as defined by RCW 19.16.1 00(2)? The Supreme Court responded that that debt buyers fall within the definition of "collection agency" under the Washington Collection Agency Act (WCAA), chapter 19.16 RCW, when they solicit claims for collection. Accordingly, if the court finds that a company (party in this suit) solicited claims, then the company was a collection agency and it could not file collection lawsuits without a license. View "Gray v. Suttell & Assocs." on Justia Law