Class-Action Accuses Collector of Using Incorrect Itemization, Validation Dates in MVN

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 [email protected] 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.

Regulation F requires collectors to give consumers 30 days to request validation of a debt with the clock starting to tick five days — excluding legal holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays — after a notice is sent. But counting those days can be tricky at times, like during the holiday season, especially when the holidays are on weekends, which is what happened back in 2022. A class-action complaint has been filed against a collector for allegedly not providing a validation period that meets what is required under Regulation F.

A copy of the complaint, originally filed in Florida state court, which the defendant removed to the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-01089 or by clicking here.

The Model Validation Notice — which has a date on it, even though that was not required by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when it created the regulation — is December 20, 2022. The notice informs the plaintiff that he has until February 3, 2023 to dispute all or part of the debt. The complaint states that this is not the required amount of time that the plaintiff should have had to dispute all or part of the debt. The validation period, according to the complaint, should have ended on February 14, 2023. The five-day period for assuming the individual received the notice ended on December 29, 2022, and the 30-day period for seeking validation of the debt was supposed to end on February 14, not February 3.

The complaint also accuses the collector of using an incorrect itemization date that is not one of the five dates allowed to be used in the Model Validation Notice.

The suit seeks to create two classes — one for those who received similar validation notices, and one for those who received notices with incorrect validation dates. It accuses the collector of violation Sections 1692g(b), 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA, as well as provisions of Regulation F.

Check Also


CFPB Orders OneMain to Pay $20M in Fines, Penalties

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau yesterday announced a consent order with OneMain Financial that will …

One comment

  1. I don’t get the math. Counting 5 days (excluding weekends and holidays) from 12/20/22, I get 12/29/22 and then counting 30 days from then I get 01/28/23, not 02/03/23. I don’t understand where they are getting 02/14/23 from? Does the plaintiff’s attorney not know math? Are they arguing that the 30 day validation period excludes weekends and holidays as well?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *