Taylor v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc.

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms that “$0.00” Debt Itemization for Static Debts Does Not Mislead Consumers

    Troutman Sanders LLPKendall Hamilton TanNovember 12, 2019

    On November 4, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Dow v. Frontline Asset Strategies affirmed the September 24, 2018 Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which granted defendant Frontline’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In its opinion, the Court reiterated its prior ruling from Taylor v. Fin. Recovery Servs, Inc., 886 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2018), which held that “a collection notice that fails to disclose that interest and fees are not currently accruing on a debt is not misleading within the meaning of Section 1692e [of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act].” 886 F.3d at 215.Plaintiff Marlyn Dow had alleged that a collection letter which stated “as of the date of this letter, you owe $919.03,” and as part of the debt itemization included “$0.00” for interest accrued and charges could erroneously mislead a consumer that the debt was dynamic rather than static.

  2. Second Circuit Again Rules Against Consumer in Another Reverse-Avila Case

    Troutman Sanders LLPAustin DunnOctober 31, 2018

    The Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of CAC and Derosa appealed. The Second Circuit referred straight back to Taylor in which it had already held that if a debt is not accruing interest and fees, a collection letter does not need to disclose this fact:In Taylor v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 886 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2018), this Court was faced with the same question that we are faced with today: are collection notices that do not identify whether interest and fees are accruing a “per se violation” of the FDCPA? Id.