A Leading Firm in Consumer Finance Law

Bassford Remele has become a go-to firm in this area of the law, handling cutting-edge and class-action suits that shape the law. We regularly present at local, regional, and national conferences on consumer-law topics, publish articles to keep clients up to date on the latest issues and trends, and provide valuable risk-management advice across the credit and collection industry. As dedicated supporters of creditors’ rights, we have the knowledge and experience to guide clients through the complex compliance regulations issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the industry’s leading regulator.

Representative Cases

• Representation of an agency in an appeal on two consolidated claims based on the allegation that language in letters was false or misleading, successfully affirming dismissal at the Seventh Circuit on grounds that consumers lacked Article III standing because they failed to present any evidence of claimed harm.
• Representation of a Fortune 500 Company, obtaining dismissal of state law invasion of privacy claims in an FCRA action on the grounds that the federal statute preempted the state law claims against a data furnisher.
• Representation of a collection agency, securing dismissal of a putative FDCPA class action where challenged letters listed an account with a zero balance because even the unsophisticated consumer is capable of performing simple math.
• Representation of a collection agency, obtaining dismissal in an FDCPA action premised on the alleged misidentification of a creditor.
• Representation of a collection law firm, obtaining a voluntary dismissal of an attorney meaningful involvement claim and summary judgment on a consumer FDCPA claim alleging that the law firm failed to verify the debt before executing on the judgment.
• Obtained dismissal of state law invasion of privacy claims in FCRA action against data furnisher on grounds that federal statute preempted state law claims.
• Secured dismissal of putative FDCPA class action where challenged letters listed an account with a zero balance because even the unsophisticated consumer is capable of performing simple math.
• Representation of a collection agency, obtaining Court dismissal in FDCPA action premised on alleged misidentification of creditor.
• Obtained voluntary dismissal of attorney meaningful involvement claim and summary judgment in favor of collection law firm on consumer FDCPA claim that law firm failed to verify the debt before executing on judgment.
• Representation of a collection, obtaining motion to dismiss on consumer’s claim that FDCPA prohibited the collection agency from informing consumer that collection agency may submit a negative credit reporting tradeline to the Credit Reporting Agencies, even though prior collection agency had previously reported a tradeline for the same debt. Court ruled that data furnisher has the right to submit a negative tradeline of its own, regardless of whether another party has previously reported a tradeline for the same obligation.
• Representation of a law firm, obtaining judgment on the pleadings in favor of law firm in FDCPA suit on grounds that statute does not apply to attorneys representing landlords in eviction actions.
• FDCPA case premised on proofs of claim filed by debt purchaser in chapter 13 bankruptcy dismissed because Bankruptcy Code, not FDCPA, governs proof-of-claim process.
• Representation of a collection agent and attorney, obtaining decision dismissing consumer’s claim that the agent and attorney improperly attempted to enforce judgment through state-court garnishment proceedings.
• Representation of a collection agency, obtaining victorious defense of FDCPA claim based on the alleged failure to include an interest disclosure. Devised strategy and defended a national collection action in an action that tried to expand upon existing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case law. Client prevailed via summary judgment in which the U.S. District Court held that a collection agency was not required to include an interest disclosure statement when interest was not accruing. The decision was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit and thus nullified the attempt to expand negative case law.
• Court decisions holding that tax consequence language did not violate the FDCPA. Successfully obtained numerous decisions in multiple jurisdictions holding that the inclusion of language in debt collection notices advising consumers of the potential tax consequence of debt settlement did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
• Successfully defended agency against FDCPA claims and obtained motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
• Successfully defended agency against FDCPA claims and obtained motion to dismiss because the plaintiff’s motion was not brought within a reasonable time from the entry of judgment and plaintiff did not demonstrate excusable neglect or any other basis under Rule 60(b) for seeking to vacate the judgment.
• Representation of a collection agency, securing a dismissal of a consumer’s claim that the FDCPA prohibited a collection agency from informing the consumer that the collection agency may submit a negative tradeline to the Credit Reporting Agencies. Plaintiff claimed that a prior collection agency’s reporting on the same account prohibited the subsequent agency from reporting. The Court agreed that the new collection agency had the right to submit a negative tradeline of its own, regardless of whether another party has previously reported a tradeline for the same obligation.
• Representation of a law firm, obtaining a judgment on the pleadings establishing that the FDCPA, in relevant part, does not apply to attorneys representing landlords in eviction actions.
• Representation of a collection agency at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully obtaining an opinion affirming the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims on the grounds that the challenged letter was not unfair or deceptive and the interest sought was permitted.
• Representation of a collection agency in district court, ultimately obtaining an affirmance of the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims; the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held in a matter of first impression that a materiality standard applies to claims of deception under the FDCPA. Hill, 888 F.3d 343 (8th Cir. 2018).
• Representation of a law firm in district court and on appeal, winning summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings in an alleged unlawful attorney-fee collection and unlawful levy/garnishment practices claim.
• Representation of a collection agency, obtaining summary judgment in a case alleging the agency’s voicemail was a third-party communication in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Zortman, 870 F. Supp. 2d 694 (D. Minn. 2012).
• Representation of a collection agency, winning a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case alleging the agency’s validation notice, creditworthiness opinions, and misrepresentations violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
• Representation of a collection agency, winning a motion to dismiss because the agency was not acting as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as the debt was not in default.
• Representation of a collection agency on appeal, obtaining a decision reversing a federal district court order granting class certification on claims involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Powers, 776 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2015).
• Representation of a collection agency in district court and on appeal, obtaining a motion to dismiss in a case involving the alleged failure to advise of the possible tax consequences of accepting a reduced offer of a delinquent account. Altman, 786 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2015).
• Representation of a collection agency in district court and on appeal, winning summary judgment based on the bona fide error defense in a putative class action for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Wilhelm, 519 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2008).
• Representation of a collection agency in district court and on appeal, winning summary judgment when the creditor did not relay that the debtor was represented by a lawyer, establishing a creditor’s knowledge is not imputed to a collection agency. This was the first case to address this issue in the Eighth Circuit. Schmitt, 398 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2005).
• Representation of a collection agency in district court and on appeal, obtaining dismissal of claims alleging the language and/or symbols on transmitting collection notices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Strand, 380 F.3d 316 (8th Cir. 2004).
• Representation of a collection agency in district court and on appeal, winning summary judgment in a case claiming the collection agency continued communications with the plaintiffs after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Udell, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (D. Kan. 2004).