EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
Ahhhhh … The itemization date. In the run-up to the enactment of Regulation F, this was a particular concern for companies in the ARM industry. Collectors could choose from one of five dates — the last statement date, charge-off date, last payment date, transaction date, or judgment date — to give the consumer a frame of reference about the debt. But the collector didn’t have to tell the consumer which date was being used. Won’t this lead to confusion, some collectors asked. Case in point, a class-action lawsuit has been filed against a collector for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F for sending a Model Validation Notice with an itemization date that is allegedly not one of the five options.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, can be accessed by using case number 23-cv-00913 or by clicking here. The case was originally filed in Florida state court, but subsequently removed to federal court by the defendant.
The complaint doesn’t say how the plaintiff knows that the date used on the notice is not one of the five options, nor does the complaint state what the date might be.
The complaint also accuses the defendant of failing to identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed on the itemization date. The top of the notice says that the defendant is trying to collect a debt that is owed to Velocity Investments. At the top of the itemization table, the plaintiff is informed that she had a Upstart Funding Grantor Trust 2021-4 Account with Upstart Network with an account number that ended in 1890.
The defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. The suit also seeks two classes of plaintiffs — the itemization creditor class for individuals who were sent a letter where it allegedly failed to identify the name of the creditor on the identified itemization date, and an itemization date class for individuals who were sent a letter where the itemization date is not one of the five options allowed under Regulation F.
