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.
The Model Validation Notice is not without its flaws. We’ve seen enough lawsuits over the inclusion of a date, or lack thereof, to know that. But another area that causes confusion amongst consumers and leads to lawsuits — like the one we have today — is the itemization date. Collectors are required to choose from one of five possible dates — the date of the last statement, the date the debt was charged off, the date the last payment was made, the date service was provided — the transaction date, or the date that a judgment was obtained. If you’re a consumer and you get a Model Validation Notice, there is no decoder ring in the envelope that helps you figure out which date the collector is using. Such confusion has led to multiple lawsuits, including a class-action suit in Florida that is accusing a collector of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the itemization date in the MVN was allegedly not one of the five put forth in Regulation F.
A copy of the lawsuit, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is available using case number 23-cv-61768 or by clicking here.
The date used in the MVN in this case was January 2, 2023. The complaint alleges that the date is not any of the five dates allowed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — although the complaint doesn’t detail how it knows that (which is a whole other thread that needs to get pulled at). The defendant opted to include a date on the MVN, and the notice was dated January 17, 2023.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA and seeks to include anyone else who received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant that did not use the correct itemization date.
