debt

Document Sample
debt Powered By Docstoc
					Wrongful Debt Collection


  Consumer Transactions
       Dr. Steiner
Debt Collection and the Texas Bar Exam

 BLE: Topics tested on Consumer Law
      “Texas and Federal debt collection acts: Federal
      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Texas
      Debt Collection Practices Act”
 Past Exams
     Texas Debt Collection Practices Act was tested
      on Feb. 2002, July 2002, Feb. 2004, July 2005
      bar exams
July 2005 Call of the Question:
Debt Collection
 1. What conduct or actions, if any, of NCC
  and/or Capital were violations of the
  Texas Debt Collection Practices Act?
  Explain fully.
 2. What remedies, if any, are available to
  Dan under the Texas Debt Collection
  Practices Act and the Texas Deceptive
  Trade Practices Act? Explain fully.
  Feb. 2004 Call of the Question:
  Debt Collection
 What rights and civil remedies, if any, does
  Carlos have under the Texas Debt Collection
  Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
  Act
 1. Against Bank? Explain fully.
 2. Against Law Firm? Explain fully.
Web Resources: FTC Formal Actions
Web Resources:
FTC Staff Opinion Letters
Web Resources:
FTC Staff Commentary on FDCPA
Web Resources:
National Consumer Law Center
Duty v. General Finance Co.
 Whether debtors have right to recover
  damages for mental anguish and physical
  injury willfully and wantonly inflicted upon
  them by wrongful conduct by creditors
  attempting to collect debt
 Did these debt collectors love their work or
  what?
Texas Debt Collection Practices Act
  Originally enacted in 1973
  Proscribes certain “debt collection methods”
  Civil remedies include injunctive relief, actual
   damages, and attorneys fees
  Violations of Debt Collection Act are
   violations of DTPA
 FDCA: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (1977):
 Congressional Findings
 (a) Abusive practices
  There is abundant evidence of the use of
  abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
  practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt
  collection practices contribute to the number of
  personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to
  the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual
  privacy.
 (b) Inadequacy of laws
  Existing laws and procedures for redressing
  these injuries are inadequate to protect
  consumers.
 15 U.S.C. § 1692:
 Congressional Findings
 (c) Available non-abusive collection methods
  Means other than misrepresentation or other
  abusive debt collection practices are available for
  the effective collection of debts.
 (d) Interstate commerce
  Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to
  a substantial extent in interstate commerce and
  through means and instrumentalities of such
  commerce. Even where abusive debt collection
  practices are purely intrastate in character, they
  nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.
  Relation of FDCPA to state law:
  15 USC § 1692n
 This title does not annul, alter, or affect, or
  exempt any person subject to the provisions of
  this title from complying with the laws of any
  State with respect to debt collection practices,
  except to the extent that those laws are
  inconsistent with any provision of this title, and
  then only to the extent of the inconsistency. For
  purposes of this section, a State law is not
  inconsistent with this title if the protection such
  law affords any consumer is greater than the
  protection provided by this title.
 Defining “debt collector”
 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)
 The term “debt collector” means any person who
  uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce
  or the mails in any business the principal
  purpose of which is the collection of any debts,
  or who regularly collects or attempts to collect,
  directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or
  asserted to be owed or due another. . . [T]he
  term includes any creditor who, in the process of
  collecting his own debts, uses any name other
  than his own which would indicate that a third
  person is collecting or attempting to collect such
  debts.
  15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)

 The term does not include—
 (A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in
 the name of the creditor, collecting debts for
 such creditor;
 (B) any person while acting as a debt collector
 for another person, both of whom are related by
 common ownership or affiliated by corporate
 control, if the person acting as a debt collector
 does so only for persons to whom it is so related
 or affiliated and if the principal business of such
 person is not the collection of debts; …
  Tex. Fin. Code § 392.001(6)

 “Debt collector” means a person who directly or
  indirectly engages in debt collection and
  includes a person who sells or offers to sell
  forms represented to be a collection system,
  device, or scheme intended to be used to collect
  consumer debts.
   15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)
 The term “debt” means any obligation or alleged
  obligation of a consumer to pay money arising
  out of a transaction in which the money, property,
  insurance, or services which are the subject of
  the transaction are primarily for personal, family,
  or household purposes, whether or not such
  obligation has been reduced to judgment.
  Miller v. McCalla, Raymar, and the rest

 FDCPA coverage
 Determining whether debt was a consumer debt
  or a business debt
 Statutory interpretation according to Posner
   Heintz v. Jenkins
 Whether term “debt collector” in FDCPA applies
  to lawyer who “regularly” through litigation tries
  to collect consumer debt
 Statutory definition of “debt collector”
 Why does court conclude attorneys may be
  “debt collectors”?
 Implied exemption?
   15 U.S.C. § 1692e:
   False or misleading representations
 A debt collector may not use any false,
  deceptive, or misleading representation or
  means in connection with the collection of any
  debt. Without limiting the general application of
  the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation
  of this section:
    (3) The false representation or implication that any
    individual is an attorney or that any
    communication is from an attorney.
  Volume debt collection practices and
  letters “from an attorney”
 If law firm handled 55,000 new cases a month,
  mailing over 110,000 letters, received only
  limited information, reviewed collection files with
  such speed that no independent judgment could
  be found, and then issued form collection letters
  with the click of a mouse, a reasonable jury
  could conclude that the law firm lacked sufficient
  professional involvement with plaintiff’s file that
  the letters could be said to be “from an attorney”
    Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson (2d Cir. 2003)
 Tex. Fin. Code § 392.001

 (7) “Third-party debt collector” means a debt
  collector, as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section
  1692a(6), but does not include an attorney
  collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of
  and in the name of a client unless the attorney
  has nonattorney employees who:
  (A) are regularly engaged to solicit debts for
  collection; or
  (B) regularly make contact with debtors for the
  purpose of collection or adjustment of debts.
Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yusek,
Gainen, Carroll & Bertolotti
 Is a law firm “regularly” engaging in debt
  collection when it had derived only $5000 in
  revenues (.05% of its $10 million annual
  revenue) from sending 145 “three-day
  notices” over the preceding year?
 Predicates for “debt collector” status
      Principal purpose
      Regularly engaging
    Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yusek, Gainen,
    Carroll & Bertolotti

 (1) the absolute number of debt collection
    communications issued, and/or collection-related
    litigation matters pursued, over the relevant period(s),
   (2) the frequency of such communications and/or
    litigation activity, including whether any patterns of such
    activity are discernable,
   (3) whether the entity has personnel specifically assigned
    to work on debt collection activity,
   (4) whether the entity has systems or contractors in place
    to facilitate such activity, and
   (5) whether the activity is undertaken in connection with
    ongoing client relationships with entities that have
    retained the lawyer or firm to assist in the collection of
    outstanding consumer debt obligations.
  Romine v. Diversified Collection
 Statutory definition of “debt collector”
 Western Union’s AVT (Automated Voice
  Telegram) service
 Do Western Union’s activities taken together,
  amount to a direct or indirect attempt to collect
  a debt?
 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)

 The term “debt collector” means any person
  who uses any instrumentality of interstate
  commerce or the mails in any business the
  principal purpose of which is the collection of
  any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts
  to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or
  due or asserted to be owed or due another.
  Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group
 Whether cable television
  companies, by demanding
  money to settle claims
  against cable thieves, were
  seeking to collect a “debt”?
 Three problems with
  plaintiff’s argument
 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)
 The term “debt” means any obligation or
  alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money
  arising out of a transaction in which the money,
  property, insurance, or services which are the
  subject of the transaction are primarily for
  personal, family, or household purposes,
  whether or not such obligation has been
  reduced to judgment.
  Defining Debt

 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)           Tex. Fin. Code § 392.001.
 The term “debt” means any      “Consumer debt” means
  obligation or alleged           an obligation, or an
  obligation of a consumer to     alleged obligation,
  pay money arising out of a      primarily for personal,
  transaction in which the        family, or household
  money, property, insurance,     purposes and arising from
  or services which are the       a transaction or alleged
  subject of the transaction      transaction.
  are primarily for personal,
  family, or household
  purposes, whether or not
  such obligation has been
  reduced to judgment.
Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky,
Brewster & Neider, S.C.
 Whether transactions under FDCPA’s are
  limited to those involving the offer or
  extension of credit
 Court’s stance toward Zimmerman
 Statutory interpretation
15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)
 The term “debt” means any obligation or
  alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money
  arising out of a transaction in which the
  money, property, insurance, or services which
  are the subject of the transaction are primarily
  for personal, family, or household purposes,
  whether or not such obligation has been
  reduced to judgment.
Collection of Bad Checks and
FDCPA
 Every circuit court that has addressed this issue has
  sided with the Seventh Circuit:
      Broadnax v. Greene Credit Serv., 106 F.3d 400 (6th
       Cir. 1997)
      Snow v. Jesse L. Riddle, P.C., 143 F.3d 1350 (10th
       Cir. 1998)
      Charles v. Lundgren & Assoc., P.C., 119 F.3d 739 (9th
       Cir. 1997)
 Following the definition of “debt” in Zimmerman,
  district courts in the Third Circuit have held that the
  FDCPA doesn’t apply to the collection of bad checks.
  See, e.g., Krevsky v. Equifax Check Serv., Inc., 85
  F.Supp.2d 479 (M.D. Pa. 2000)
 Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023.
 Statute Construction Aids
 In construing a statute, whether or not the
  statute is considered ambiguous on its face, a
  court may consider among other matters the:
     (1) object sought to be attained;
     (2) circumstances under which the statute was
      enacted;
     (3) legislative history;
     (4) common law or former statutory provisions,
      including laws on the same or similar subjects;
    Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023.
    Statute Construction Aids

 (5) consequences of a particular construction;
 (6) administrative construction of the statute; and
 (7) title (caption), preamble, and emergency
  provision.
Validation Notice:
15 U.S.C. § 1692g
 Within five days after the initial
  communication with a consumer in
  connection with the collection of any
  debt, a debt collector shall, unless the
  following information is contained in the
  initial communication or the consumer
  has paid the debt, send the consumer a
  written notice containing
Validation Notice:
15 U.S.C. § 1692g
 (1) the amount of the debt;
 (2) the name of the creditor to whom the
  debt is owed;
 (3) a statement that unless the
  consumer, within thirty days after
  receipt of the notice, disputes the
  validity of all or part of the debt, the debt
  will be assumed to be valid by the debt
  collector;
 Validation Notice:
 15 U.S.C. § 1692g
 (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies
  the debt collector in writing within the thirty-
  day period that all or part of the debt is
  disputed, the debt collector will mail
  verification of the debt or a copy of a
  judgment to the consumer; and
 (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's
  written request within the thirty-day period,
  the debt collector will provide the consumer
  with the name and address of the original
  creditor, if different from the current creditor.
   Swanson v. Southern Oregon
   Credit Serv., Inc.
IF THIS ACCOUNT IS PAID WITHIN
THE NEXT 10 DAYS IT WILL NOT BE
RECORDED IN OUR MASTER FILE
AS AN UNPAID COLLECTION ITEM.
A GOOD CREDIT RATING–IS YOUR
MOST VALUABLE ASSET
Unless you, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, dispute the validity of all or part of the debt, the debt will be
assumed to be valid by us. If you notify us in writing within the thirty-day period that all or part of the debt is disputed,
we will mail verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment to the consumer; and upon your written request within the
thirty-day period, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current
creditor.
Swanson:
Least Sophisticated Debtor Standard
 Was validation notice
  “overshadowed” by the rest of
  the letter?
 Importance of “visual effect”
 Would least sophisticated
  debtor likely be misled by the
  notice?
  Warnings under 15 USC § 1692e
 A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or
  misleading representation or means in connection with
  the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general
  application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a
  violation of this section:
      (11) The failure to disclose in the initial written
       communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the
       initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that
       initial oral communication, that the debt collector is
       attempting to collect a debt and that any information
       obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to
       disclose in subsequent communications that the
       communication is from a debt collector, except that this
       paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in
       connection with a legal action.
    Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304.
 (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, in debt collection or
   obtaining information concerning a consumer, a debt collector may not
   use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs
   the following practices:
     (5) in the case of a third-party debt collector, failing to disclose,
       except in a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action:
          (A) that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt and that

           any information obtained will be used for that purpose, if the
            communication is the initial written or oral communication between
            the third-party debt collector and the debtor; or
           (B) that the communication is from a debt collector, if the
            communication is a subsequent written or oral communication
            between the third-party debt collector and the debtor;
FDCPA Form Letter: Bartlett v. Heibel

 Would the letter work in Texas?
  CPRC § 38.001.
  A person may recover reasonable attorney's fees
  from an individual or corporation, in addition to the
  amount of a valid claim and costs, if the claim is
  for:
  (1) rendered services;
  (2) performed labor;
  (3) furnished material; …
  (7) a sworn account; or
  (8) an oral or written contract.
FDCPA Form Letter: Bartlett v. Heibel

 Would the letter work in Texas?
  CPRC § 38.002.
  To recover attorney's fees under this chapter:
    (1) the claimant must be represented by an
     attorney;
    (2) the claimant must present the claim to the
     opposing party or to a duly authorized agent of
     the opposing party; and
    (3) payment for the just amount owed must not
     have been tendered before the expiration of
     the 30th day after the claim is presented.
Blum v. Fisher & Fisher :
Unsophisticated Consumer Standard
 A consumer who is of
  below average
  sophistication or
  intelligence or is
  uninformed, naïve, or
  trusting
 Is standard “ratcheted”
  up or down to conform to
  reasonable perception of
  consumer standing in
  shoes of plaintiff?
  Blum v. Fisher & Fisher

This foreclosure could result in the mortgage lender
taking title to your property in approximately 7
months. During that time you may be allowed to stay
in the house absolutely rent free. In addition, you
have the right to save your house from foreclosure
by either catching up your loan or by paying off the
total mortgage debt through sale, refinancing or
otherwise.
  Gammon v. GC Serv. (7th Cir. 1994):
  Critique of “Least Sophisticated Consumer” Standard
 It strikes us virtually impossible to analyze a debt
  collection letter based on the reasonable
  interpretations of the least sophisticated
  consumer. Literally, the least sophisticated
  consumer is not merely “below average,” he is
  the very last rung on the sophistication ladder.
  Stated another way, he is the single most
  unsophisticated consumer who exists. Even
  assuming that he would be willing to do so, such
  a consumer would likely not be able to read a
  collection notice with care (or at all), let alone
  interpret it in a reasonable fashion.
 “Least Sophisticated” and “Unsophisticated”
 Consumer Standards
 Least Sophisticated Consumer Standard
     Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Serv., Inc., 869 F.2d 1222
      (9th Cir.1989)
    Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350 (3rd Cir.2000)
    Savino v. Computer Credit Inc., 164 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir.1998)
    Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir.1985)
 Unsophisticated Consumer Standard
    Gammon v. GC Services, 27 F.3d 1254 (7th Cir.1994)
    Duffy v. Landberg, 215 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2000)
 Fifth Circuit: Peter v. GCServ. L.P., 310 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2002)
  We have explicitly avoided ruling on which of these standards, if
  either, we use. . . Because the difference between the standards
  is de minimis at most, we again opt not to choose between these
  standards.
  Jenkins v. Union Corp.: First letter

Our client has requested that we contact you
regarding your check which has been returned by
the bank and payment refused. We realize this could
be an oversight on your part and not willful disregard
of an obligation.
However, intentional payment with a dishonored
check for goods or services can lead to serious
consequences.
The amount due includes a service fee, which must
also be paid. To avoid any possible
misunderstanding, it is important you immediately
make payment to or arrangements with [Jerry
Montell Pontiac].
Jenkins v. Union Corp.: First letter to Jenkins

Transworld Systems, Inc. is a licensed collection
agency and any information obtained from you
will be used for the purpose of collecting this
debt. All portions of this claim shall be assumed
valid unless disputed within thirty days of
receiving this notice. If disputed in writing,
verification of the debt will be provided to you. If
the original creditor is different from the above
named creditor, the name and address of the
original creditor will also be provided.
Jenkins v. Union Corp.: 2d common letter


IMPERATIVE--Grace period about to expire. Our
client shows an unpaid account in the above stated
amount appearing legally due and owing by you.
This account has been referred to our agency and
we are authorized to pursue collection. With offices
nationwide, a number of alternatives are available
to us to effect settlement. You may eliminate the
possibility of additional trouble and make further
communication unnecessary by contacting your
creditor at once. Be sure to enclose this letter with
your payment for proper identification.
  Jenkins v. Union Corp.: Third letter to Jenkins

 Above claim still due. Federally mandated
  dispute period will expire within 10 days. Unless
  we hear from you, at that time we will assume
  your debt to be legally due.
  Please be advised that there are two ways of
  settling a legitimate debt-- timely payment or as
  the result of protracted and unpleasant collection
  effort. At this time the choice is still yours. Make
  further effort on our part unnecessary by making
  payment to [Jerry Montell Pontiac].
Jenkins v. Union Corp.: First letter to Terrafino

  URGENT--This account has been assigned to
  our agency for immediate collection.
  Please be advised that we have been
  authorized to pursue collection and are
  committed to make whatever efforts are
  necessary and proper to effect collection.
  Strongly recommend you contact our client to
  make payment arrangement.
Threats of Litigation:
15 USC § 1692e(5)
 A debt collector may not use any false,
  deceptive, or misleading representation or
  means in connection with the collection of
  any debt. Without limiting the general
  application of the foregoing, the following
  conduct is a violation of this section:
     (5) The threat to take any action that cannot
      legally be taken or that is not intended to be
      taken.
 Jenkins v. Union Corp.: Third letter to Terrafino


As Collection Manager of Transworld
Systems Inc., I thought it important to state
our intentions regarding your debt. The
economic feasibility of some type of litigation
by our client has not been determined.
Jenkins v. Union Corp.: Third letter to Terrafino

  However, please understand that if legal
   action were to be undertaken, it would be
   costly and time-consuming for both parties.
   The loser of such an action would probably
   be subject to court costs and/or attorney fees,
   if applicable. Should such court action occur,
   and should your creditor prevail, there would
   be available various avenues to satisfy a
   judgment. You may wish to check your state
   laws concerning these remedies.
Jenkins v. Union Corp.: Third letter to Terrafino

 It is not my intention to threaten or alarm you
 about this matter but merely to point out the
 problems of refusing to pay what appears to be a
 just and legal debt.
 We would hope, however, that additional costly
 collection efforts not be necessary (sic) and that
 you demonstrate your willingness to resolve this
 matter by remitting the full amount due to
 [Glenoaks Medical Center].
Jenkins v. Union Corp.:
Reverse side of form letters
                    COLORADO
 If you refuse to voluntarily pay this debt, or you
 wish our agency to cease communication either
 written or oral at either your place of
 employment or residence, and you so advise
 Transworld Systems Inc. in writing, we will not
 communicate with you further ....
Jenkins v. Union Corp.:
Court’s suggested revision
 We are required under state law to notify
 consumers of the following rights. This list does
 not contain a complete list of the rights
 consumers have under state and federal law.
 If you refuse to voluntarily pay this debt, or you
 wish our agency to cease communication either
 written or oral at either your place of
 employment or residence, and you so advise
 Transworld Systems Inc. in writing, we will not
 communicate with you further ....
  Problem 25
  a. Calling a debtor at her place of employment
 Federal § 1692c
    (a) Without the prior consent of the consumer
     given directly to the debt collector or the express
     permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a
     debt collector may not communicate with a
     consumer in connection with the collection of any
     debt—
         (3) at the consumer’s place of employment if the
          debt collector knows or has reason to know that the
          consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from
          receiving such communication.
   Problem 25
   a. Calling a debtor at her place of employment
 Texas § 392.302
    In debt collection, a debt collector may not oppress,
     harass, or abuse a person by:
         (2) placing telephone calls without disclosing the name
          of the individual making the call and with the intent to
          annoy, harass, or threaten a person at the called
          number;
         (3) causing a person to incur a long distance telephone
          toll, telegram fee, or other charge by a medium of
          communication without first disclosing the name of the
          person making the communication; or
         (4) causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or
          continuously, or making repeated or continuous
          telephone calls, with the intent to harass a person at the
          called number.
  Problem 25
  b. Calling a debtor’s mother and telling her
  that her son owes you money
 Federal § 1692c.
    Except as provided in section 1692b [location
     information], without the prior consent of the
     consumer given directly to the debt collector, or
     the express permission of a court of competent
     jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to
     effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt
     collector may not communicate, in connection with
     the collection of any debt, with any person other
     than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer
     reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the
     creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the
     attorney of the debt collector.
 Problem 25
 c. Sending letter with debtor with return address that
 includes “Debt Collection Agency”
 Federal § 1692f(8)
    Using any language or symbol, other than the
     debt collector’s address, on any envelope when
     communicating with a consumer by use of the
     mails or by telegram, except that a debt
     collector may use his business name if such
     name does not indicate that he is in the debt
     collection business.
 Problem 25
 d. Telling a debtor who’s current that his wages will
 be garnished if he becomes delinquent
 Federal § 1692e(5)
    The threat to take any action that cannot legally
     be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
 Federal § 1692f
 Texas § 392.301(a)(8).
    (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not
     use threats, coercion, or attempts to coerce that
     employ any of the following practices: . . .
         (8) threatening to take an action prohibited by law.
Problem 25
e. Immediately recalling debtor after debtor hangs up

 Federal § 1692d(5)
    Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any
     person in telephone conversation repeatedly or
     continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or
     harass any person at the called number.
Problem 25
e. Immediately recalling debtor after debtor hangs up

 Texas § 392.302
      In debt collection, a debt collector may not
       oppress, harass, or abuse a person by:
           (4) causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or
            continuously, or making repeated or continuous
            telephone calls, with the intent to harass a person
            at the called number.
  Problem 25
 F. Telling a debtor that unless immediate payment is
  made the debtor’s account will be reported to the credit
  bureau, impacting his credit rating
      Federal
         Validation rights

         Threatens an action that can’t legally be taken. § 1692e(5)

      Texas
         § 392.301. A debt collector may not use threats, coercion,
          or attempts to coerce that employ any of the following
          practices:
             (3) representing or threatening to represent to any person other
              than the consumer that a consumer is wilfully refusing to pay a
              nondisputed consumer debt when the debt is in dispute and the
              consumer has notified in writing the debt collector of the dispute;
 Problem 25
 g. Telling a debtor “we work with the government; you must
 surely know what problems you will face if you do not pay”
 Federal § 1692e
     A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive,
      or misleading representation or means in
      connection with the collection of any debt. Without
      limiting the general application of the foregoing,
      the following conduct is a violation of this section:
          (1) The false representation or implication that the
           debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated
           with the United States or any State, including the use
           of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.
  Problem 25
  g. Telling a debtor “we work with the government; you must
  surely know what problems you will face if you do not pay”
 Texas § 392.304(a)(9)
    (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section,
     in debt collection or obtaining information
     concerning a consumer, a debt collector may not
     use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading
     representation that employs the following
     practices:
         (9) representing falsely that a debt collector is
          vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with, or is an
          instrumentality, agent, or official of, this state or an
          agency of federal, state, or local government
Problem 25
h. Attempting to collect a debt that collector is unaware it’s barred
by the statute of limitations

   Federal § 1692k(c)
   A debt collector may not be held liable in any
     action brought under this subchapter if the
     debt collector shows by a preponderance of
     evidence that the violation was not intentional
     and resulted from a bona fide error
     notwithstanding the maintenance of
     procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any
     such error.
Problem 25
h. Attempting to collect a debt that collector is unaware it’s barred
by the statute of limitations

   Texas § 392.401.
   A person does not violate this chapter if the
     action complained of resulted from a bona
     fide error that occurred notwithstanding the
     use of reasonable procedures adopted to
     avoid the error.
Problem 25
 Harassing debtor about an obligation arising
  out of small family-owned business
Problem 25
J. Wrongful contact with debtor’s relative; can
relative of debtor sue?
 Federal § 1692k. Civil liability
    [A]ny debt collector who fails to comply with
     any provision of this subchapter with respect
     to any person is liable to such person in an
     amount equal to the sum of—
 Most cases appear to allow any person
  harmed by collector’s actions, but West v.
  Costen says debtor’s mom couldn’t recover
  under FDCPA
 Texas § 392.403. Civil Remedies (a) A
  person may sue for . . .
 Problem 25
 J. Wrongful contact with debtor’s relative; can
 relative of debtor sue?
 Federal § 1692d
 A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the
  natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or
  abuse any person in connection with the collection of a
  debt. Without limiting the general application of the
  foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this
  section:
      (2) The use of obscene or profane language or language
       the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or
       reader.
      (5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in
       telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with
       intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called
       number.
Problem 25
k. Stating that debt collector has convinced creditor to give you
another chance when it’s automatic
 Federal §1692e False or misleading
  misrepresentations
 Texas § 392.304.
      (14) representing falsely the status or nature
       of the services rendered by the debt collector
       or the debt collector's business;
Problem 25
l. Sending letter with attorney’s signature when the
attorney never reviewed file or had any input
 Federal § 1692e. A debt collector may not
   use any false, deceptive, or misleading
   representation or means in connection with
   the collection of any debt. Without limiting the
   general application of the foregoing, the
   following conduct is a violation of this section:
      (3) The false representation or implication that
       any individual is an attorney or that any
       communication is from an attorney.
Problem 25
l. Sending letter with attorney’s signature when the
attorney never reviewed file or had any input
 Texas § 392.304. (a) Except as otherwise
   provided by this section, in debt collection or
   obtaining information concerning a consumer,
   a debt collector may not use a fraudulent,
   deceptive, or misleading representation that
   employs the following practices:
      (16) using a communication that purports to be
       from an attorney or law firm if it is not;
      (17) representing that a consumer debt is
       being collected by an attorney if it is not;
 Problem 25
 m. Threatening to file for amount “plus interest” where
 interest couldn’t be awarded

 Federal § 1692f
 A debt collector may not use unfair or
  unconscionable means to collect or attempt to
  collect any debt. Without limiting the general
  application of the foregoing, the following conduct
  is a violation of this section:
 (1) The collection of any amount (including any
  interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the
  principal obligation) unless such amount is
  expressly authorized by the agreement creating
  the debt or permitted by law.
Problem 25
m. Threatening to file for amount “plus interest” where
interest couldn’t be awarded
 Federal § 1692e. A debt collector may not
   use any false, deceptive, or misleading
   representation or means in connection with
   the collection of any debt. Without limiting the
   general application of the foregoing, the
   following conduct is a violation of this section:
       (5) The threat to take any action that cannot
        legally be taken or that is not intended to be
        taken.
Problem 25
m. Threatening to file for amount “plus interest” where
interest couldn’t be awarded
 Texas §§ 392.303.
 (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not
   use unfair or unconscionable means that
   employ the following practices: . . .
       (2) collecting or attempting to collect interest
        or a charge, fee, or expense incidental to the
        obligation unless the interest or incidental
        charge, fee, or expense is expressly
        authorized by the agreement creating the
        obligation or legally chargeable to the
        consumer;
Problem 25
m. Threatening to file for amount “plus interest” where
interest couldn’t be awarded
 Texas § 392.304
 (12) representing that a consumer debt may
   be increased by the addition of attorney's
   fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other
   charges if a written contract or statute does
   not authorize the additional fees or charges;
  Brown v. Oaklawn Bank
 To what extent
  may a creditor
  use the threat of
  criminal
  prosecution to
  procure payment
  of a debt under
  Texas Debt
  Collection Act?
  15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)
 The term [debt collector] does not include—
  (A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in
  the name of the creditor, collecting debts for
  such creditor;
  (B) any person while acting as a debt collector
  for another person, both of whom are related by
  common ownership or affiliated by corporate
  control, if the person acting as a debt collector
  does so only for persons to whom it is so related
  or affiliated and if the principal business of such
  person is not the collection of debts; …
  Tex. Fin. Code sec. 392.001(6)
 (6) “Debt collector” means a person who directly
  or indirectly engages in debt collection and
  includes a person who sells or offers to sell
  forms represented to be a collection system,
  device, or scheme intended to be used to collect
  consumer debts.
 Tex. Fin. Code § 392.301
 (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not
  use threats, coercion, or attempts to coerce
  that employ any of the following practices:…
    (2) accusing falsely or threatening to accuse
     falsely a person of fraud or any other
     crime;…
    (5) threatening that the debtor will be
     arrested for nonpayment of a consumer debt
     without proper court proceedings;
    (6) threatening to file a charge, complaint, or
     criminal action against a debtor when the
     debtor has not violated a criminal law;
  Tex. Fin. Code § 392.301
 (b) Subsection (a) does not prevent a debt
  collector from:
    (1) informing a debtor that the debtor may be
     arrested after proper court proceedings if the
     debtor has violated a criminal law of this state;
    (2) threatening to institute civil lawsuits or other
     judicial proceedings to collect a consumer debt;
     or
    (3) exercising or threatening to exercise a
     statutory or contractual right of seizure,
     repossession, or sale that does not require court
     proceedings.
Texas Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 4.04
  Respect for Rights of Third Persons
  (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not
   use means that have no substantial purpose
   other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a
   third person, or use methods of obtaining
   evidence that violate the legal rights of such a
   person.
  (b) A lawyer shall not present, participate in
   presenting, or threaten to present:
       (1) criminal or disciplinary charges solely to gain
        an advantage in a civil matter;
Romea v. Heiberger & Assoc.
 Whether back rent is a debt
 Whether required state law three-day notice
  for possessory action is a communication
  under FDCPA
 Whether lawyers sending required state law
  notices are exempted from FDCPA
Shimek v. Forbes, 374 F.3d 1011
(11th Cir. 2004)(note case)
 Does filing a lien contemporaneously with
  sending the demand letter (with 30-day
  validation notice) violate the FDCPA?
 Does a debt collector violate the FDCPA by
  failing to prevent the recording of the lien
  after the consumer has requested
  verification?
  Shorty v. Capital One Bank
 §1692e(2)(A) prohibits “false representation” of
  the “character, amount, or legal status of any
  debt”
 Does a debt collector violate §1692e(2)(A) by
  sending an otherwise legally sufficient debt
  validation notice without notifying the debtor that
  the debt is time-barred?
Randolph v. IMBS, Inc.
 Relationship between automatic stay
  provision of bankruptcy law and FDCPA
     Is bankruptcy the only recourse against post-
      bankruptcy debt-collection efforts?
     Does the Bankruptcy Code implicitly repeal
      the FDCPA in a post-bankruptcy debt
      collection?
Problem 26 (Feb. 2004 Exam)
 What rights and civil remedies, if any, does
  Carlos have under the Texas Debt Collection
  Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
  Act
     Against Bank? Explain fully.
     Against Law Firm? Explain fully.
Problem 26 Bank
 Bank as debt collector under Texas Debt
  Collection Act
 Bank’s violations of Texas Debt Collection Act
 Tie-in statute?
 Consumer standing under DTPA
 DTPA violations
Problem 26 Bank
 Bank as debt collector under FDCPA
   § 1692a(6) defines “debt collector”
 Assuming debt collector status, did Bank
  violate FDCPA?
     § 1692e(4) The representation or implication
      that nonpayment of any debt will result in the
      arrest or imprisonment of any person or the
      seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of
      any property or wages of any person unless
      such action is lawful and the debt collector or
      creditor intends to take such action.
Problem 26 Law Firm
 Law firm as debt collector under Texas Debt
  Collection Act
 Violations of Texas Debt Collection Act
 Tie-in statute
 Consumer standing under DTPA
 Professional services exemption and DTPA
 DTPA violations
Problem 26 Remedies
 Damages under Texas Debt Collection Act
 Damages if tie-in
 Damages under DTPA
 Damages under FDCPA
Then article 5069-11.10
 (a) Any person may seek injunctive relief to
  prevent or restrain a violation of this Act and
  any person may maintain an action for actual
  damages sustained as a result of a violation
  of this Act.
 (c) A person who successfully maintains an
  action under this article shall be awarded at
  least $100 for each violation of this Act.
Elston v. Resolution Serv., Inc.
 Is proof of actual damages necessary to
  successfully maintain a suit for violations of
  Texas Debt Collection Act?
 Does the $100 minimum award provide an
  independent cause of action?
 current Tex. Fin. Code § 392.403

 (a) A person may sue for:
     (1) injunctive relief to prevent or restrain a
      violation of this chapter; and
    (2) actual damages sustained as a result of a
      violation of this chapter.
 (e) A person who successfully maintains an action
  under this section for violation of Section
  392.101[bond requirement], 392.202[correction of
  files], or 392.301(a)(3)[threatening to represent that
  the consumer is refusing to pay nondisputed debt
  when it’s disputed] is entitled to not less than $100
  for each violation of this chapter.
Damages under Texas Debt
Collection Act: GreenPoint Credit
 GreenPoint Credit Corp. v. Perez, 75 S.W. 3d
  40 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002)
     Five-million-dollar award for actual damages
      upheld. “The compensatory damage issue
      was asked in the broad form, with the
      elements of physical pain, mental anguish,
      medical care and disfigurement listed.”
     “This unfair debt collections act case involves
      an illegal threat by a finance company to put
      an elderly woman in jail for a debt that she did
      not owe, on a mobile home she did not own.”
Damages under Texas Debt
Collection Act: GreenPoint Credit
   GreenPoint began calling Mrs. Perez and insisting the
    owed money on a mobile home. During the second call,
    the GreenPoint representative was rude, used obscene
    language, and threatened if she did not send in a payment
    that day, a sheriff's deputy was going to come and put her
    in jail that afternoon, at 2 p.m. “This about did Mrs. Perez
    in.” Her daughter found her later distraught and crying; she
    insisted on surrendering to the sheriff because she was
    going to be put in jail, and apparently was ready to turn
    herself in. The Sheriff called GreenPoint himself and told
    them that they had the wrong person. “He informed
    GreenPoint that Mrs. Perez owned no mobile home and
    that Mrs. Perez's signature did not match the one on the
    document. The Sheriff's words also fell on deaf ears.”
    Damages under Texas Debt
    Collection Act: GreenPoint Credit
   Approximately two weeks later, GreenPoint sent a
    field representative to Mrs. Perez's home to
    investigate the case. The representative completed a
    Field Contact Form in which he stated that Mrs.
    Perez continued to deny having signed any contract
    and that Mrs. Perez provided him with an ID and a
    social security card. The representative also
    obtained a handwritten affidavit from Mrs. Perez,
    signed and notarized, in which she swore that she
    had never signed any documents for the purchase of
    a mobile home, and never consented for anyone
    else to provide her personal information for such.
    Despite the evidence that they had the wrong
    person, GreenPoint sued anyway.
    Damages under Texas Debt
    Collection Act: GreenPoint Credit
   “This was an extraordinarily traumatic event for Mrs. Perez.
    Handicapped by advancing age, a demonstrated history of
    anxiety and nervousness, inability to understand the language,
    culturally insulated, and uneducated, she had few protection
    mechanisms available to counter the unexpected threats.”
   “Physical evidence of Mrs. Perez's injuries were also before
    the jury. Graphic photographs of eruptions of her skin and
    disfiguring, angry running sores were evidence of the turmoil
    within. There was also evidence of heart palpitations,
    shortness of breath, nausea, sleeplessness, panic attacks,
    difficulty in concentrating, irritability, reclusiveness and
    elevated blood pressure which caused the doctor to prescribe
    various medications.”
 Arbitration and Texas Debt
 Collection Act
 Arbitration clause said “all disputes, claims, or
  controversies arising from or relating to this
  contract” were subject to arbitration. Texas Debt
  Collection Act claims were to be arbitrated.
      In re Conseco Fin. Serv. Corp., 19 S.W.3d 562
       (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, orig. proceeding) (even
       the issue of the validity of the arbitration clause
       was to be arbitrated)
      In re Conseco Fin. Serv. Corp., 2002 WL 413179
       (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, orig. proceeding)
 15 USC §1692k(a). Civil liability
 Except as otherwise provided by this section,
  any debt collector who fails to comply with any
  provision of this subchapter with respect to any
  person is liable to such person in an amount
  equal to the sum of—
    (1) any actual damage sustained by such
     person as a result of such failure;
    (2)(A) in the case of any action by an
     individual, such additional damages as the
     court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000
 McHugh v. Check Investors, Inc.

 FDCPA damages
   Actual damages
   Statutory damages
   Attorneys fees
 State law claim
   Actual damages
   Punitive damages
  Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law
  Committee
 Defining the practice of
  law
 Is preparing and filing
  mechanic’s liens or lien
  affidavits the
  unauthorized practice of
  law?
   Tex. Fin. Code §392.301
   Threats or Coercion

 (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not
  use threats, coercion, or attempts to coerce that
  employ any of the following practices:
    (1) using or threatening to use violence or
     other criminal means to cause harm to a
     person or property of a person;
    (2) accusing falsely or threatening to accuse
     falsely a person of fraud or any other crime;
Tex. Fin. Code §392.301.
Threats or Coercion
 (3) representing or threatening to
  represent to any person other than the
  consumer that a consumer is wilfully
  refusing to pay a nondisputed consumer
  debt when the debt is in dispute and the
  consumer has notified in writing the debt
  collector of the dispute;
 Tex. Fin. Code §392.301.
 Threats or Coercion
 (4)threatening to sell or assign to
 another the obligation of the consumer
 and falsely representing that the result of
 the sale or assignment would be that the
 consumer would lose a defense to the
 consumer debt or would be subject to
 illegal collection attempts;
 Tex. Fin. Code §392.301.
 Threats or Coercion
 (5) threatening that the debtor will be
  arrested for nonpayment of a consumer
  debt without proper court proceedings;
 (6) threatening to file a charge,
  complaint, or criminal action against a
  debtor when the debtor has not violated
  a criminal law;
 Tex. Fin. Code §392.301.
 Threats or Coercion
 (7) threatening that nonpayment of a
  consumer debt will result in the seizure,
  repossession, or sale of the person's
  property without proper court proceedings;
  or
 (8) threatening to take an action prohibited
  by law.
 Tex. Fin. Code §392.301.
 Threats or Coercion
 (b) Subsection (a) does not prevent a debt
  collector from:
    (1) informing a debtor that the debtor may be
     arrested after proper court proceedings if the
     debtor has violated a criminal law of this
     state;
    (2) threatening to institute civil lawsuits or
     other judicial proceedings to collect a
     consumer debt; or
    (3) exercising or threatening to exercise a
     statutory or contractual right of seizure,
     repossession, or sale that does not require
     court proceedings.
Tex. Fin. Code §392.302 Harassment;
Abuse
 In debt collection, a debt collector may not
  oppress, harass, or abuse a person by:
    (1) using profane or obscene language or
     language intended to abuse unreasonably
     the hearer or reader;
    (2) placing telephone calls without
     disclosing the name of the individual
     making the call and with the intent to
     annoy, harass, or threaten a person at the
     called number;
    Tex. Fin. Code §392.302 Harassment;
    Abuse
   (3) causing a person to incur a long distance
    telephone toll, telegram fee, or other charge by a
    medium of communication without first disclosing the
    name of the person making the communication; or
   (4) causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or
    continuously, or making repeated or continuous
    telephone calls, with the intent to harass a person at
    the called number.
 §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
 Misleading Representations
 (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, in debt
  collection or obtaining information concerning a
  consumer, a debt collector may not use a fraudulent,
  deceptive, or misleading representation that employs
  the following practices:
    (1) using a name other than the:
       (A) true business or professional name or
        the true personal or legal name of the debt
        collector while engaged in debt collection; or
       (B) name appearing on the face of the credit
        card while engaged in the collection of a
        credit card debt;
   §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
   Misleading Representations
 (2) failing to maintain a list of all business or professional
  names known to be used or formerly used by persons
  collecting consumer debts or attempting to collect
  consumer debts for the debt collector;
 (3) representing falsely that the debt collector has
  information or something of value for the consumer in
  order to solicit or discover information about the
  consumer;
  §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
  Misleading Representations
 (4) failing to disclose clearly in any communication with
  the debtor the name of the person to whom the debt
  has been assigned or is owed when making a demand
  for money [doesn’t apply to a person servicing or
  collecting real property first lien mortgage loans or
  credit card debts];
 §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
 Misleading Representations
 (5) in the case of a third-party debt collector,
  failing to disclose, except in a formal pleading
  made in connection with a legal action:
    (A) that the communication is an attempt to
     collect a debt and that any information
     obtained will be used for that purpose, if the
     communication is the initial written or oral
     communication between the third-party debt
     collector and the debtor; or
 §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
 Misleading Representations
 (B) that the communication is from a debt
  collector, if the communication is a subsequent
  written or oral communication between the third-
  party debt collector and the debtor;
 §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
 Misleading Representations
 (6) using a written communication that fails to
  indicate clearly the name of the debt collector
  and the debt collector's street address or post
  office box and telephone number if the written
  notice refers to a delinquent consumer debt;
 (7) using a written communication that demands
  a response to a place other than the debt
  collector's or creditor's street address or post
  office box;
  §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
  Misleading Representations
 (8) misrepresenting the character, extent, or
  amount of a consumer debt, or misrepresenting
  the consumer debt's status in a judicial or
  governmental proceeding;
 (9) representing falsely that a debt collector is
  vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with, or is an
  instrumentality, agent, or official of, this state or
  an agency of federal, state, or local government;
 §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
 Misleading Representations
 (10) using, distributing, or selling a written
  communication that simulates or is represented
  falsely to be a document authorized, issued, or
  approved by a court, an official, a governmental
  agency, or any other governmental authority or
  that creates a false impression about the
  communication's source, authorization, or
  approval;
 (11) using a seal, insignia, or design that
  simulates that of a governmental agency;
  §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
  Misleading Representations

 (12) representing that a consumer debt may be
  increased by the addition of attorney's fees,
  investigation fees, service fees, or other charges
  if a written contract or statute does not authorize
  the additional fees or charges;
  §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
  Misleading Representations
 (13) representing that a consumer debt will
  definitely be increased by the addition of
  attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees,
  or other charges if the award of the fees or
  charges is subject to judicial discretion;
 (14) representing falsely the status or nature of
  the services rendered by the debt collector or
  the debt collector's business;
 (15) using a written communication that violates
  the United States postal laws and regulations;
 §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
 Misleading Representations
 (16) using a communication that purports to be
  from an attorney or law firm if it is not;
 (17) representing that a consumer debt is being
  collected by an attorney if it is not; or
   §392.304. Fraudulent, Deceptive, or
   Misleading Representations
 (18) representing that a consumer debt is being
  collected by an independent, bona fide
  organization engaged in the business of
  collecting past due accounts when the debt is
  being collected by a subterfuge organization
  under the control and direction of the person who
  is owed the debt.
§ 392.306.
Use of Independent Debt Collector
 A creditor may not use an independent debt
  collector if the creditor has actual knowledge
  that the independent debt collector repeatedly
  or continuously engages in acts or practices
  that are prohibited by this chapter.
§392.401. Bona Fide Error
 A person does not violate this chapter if the
  action complained of resulted from a bona
  fide error that occurred notwithstanding the
  use of reasonable procedures adopted to
  avoid the error.
 §392.403. Civil Remedies

 (a) A person may sue for:
    (1) injunctive relief to prevent or restrain a
     violation of this chapter; and
    (2) actual damages sustained as a result of a
     violation of this chapter.
 (b) A person who successfully maintains an
  action under Subsection (a) is entitled to
  attorney's fees reasonably related to the amount
  of work performed and costs.
§392.403. Civil Remedies
 (c) On a finding by a court that an action
  under this section was brought in bad faith or
  for purposes of harassment, the court shall
  award the defendant attorney's fees
  reasonably related to the work performed and
  costs.
  §392.403. Civil Remedies
 (d) If the attorney general reasonably believes
  that a person is violating or is about to violate
  this chapter, the attorney general may bring an
  action in the name of this state against the
  person to restrain or enjoin the person from
  violating this chapter.
  §392.403. Civil Remedies
 (e) A person who successfully maintains an
  action under this section for violation of Section
  392.101[bond requirement], 392.202[correction of
  files], or 392.301(a)(3)[threatening to represent
  that the consumer is refusing to pay nondisputed
  debt when it’s disputed] is entitled to not less than
  $100 for each violation of this chapter.
§ 392.404(a).
Remedies Under Other Law
 A violation of this chapter is a deceptive
  trade practice under Subchapter E, Chapter
  17, Business & Commerce Code, and is
  actionable under that subchapter.
Problem 27 (February 2002 Exam)
 Did Bank’s collection efforts violate the Texas
  Debt Collection Act? Explain fully.
 Did Best Credit’s collection efforts violate the
  Act? Explain fully.
 If Bank or Best Credit violated the Act, what
  civil remedies are available to Sid under the
  Act? Explain fully.
    Examiner’s Comments
 This question called for familiarity with the
  Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA). Some
  examinees correctly noted that it is not a
  violation of the TDCA for a collector to threaten
  to commence a civil action to collect the
  debt. Many examinees correctly stated that the
  TDCA generally prohibits deceptive and
  coercive debt collection practices, but they did
  not refer to specific prohibitions that the
  Bank may have violated.
 Examiner’s Comments

 In the second section, involving Best Credit's
  collection efforts, most examinees stated
  the [federal, ed.] time restrictions on telephone
  contact by debt collectors, as well as the
  [federal, ed.] rules regarding contact at the
  consumer's place of employment, but failed to
  discuss how or whether the facts supported
  finding a violation of these [federal, ed.]
  restrictions. In addition, while many examinees
  concluded that the numerous phone calls were
  harassing, they did not discuss whether the facts
  showed the debt collector’s intent to harass,
  which is required by the statute.
Examiner’s Comments

 With respect to damages, most
  examinees correctly noted that a violation of
  the TDCA is also actionable as a violation of
  the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
  (DTPA). However, some examinees only
  discussed remedies available under the
  DTPA and did not address the remedial
  scheme in the TDCA.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:20
posted:11/4/2011
language:English
pages:137