insideARM.com strives to provide compelling, informative, and useful products to the ARM industry. If you are unsatisfied with any product for any reason, you can return it for a full refund. Please contact orders@insideARM.com or call 240.499.3834.
insideARM.com’s Store is one of the most trusted online bookstores for the ARM industry. From reports to tutorials to webinars, our products are designed specifically to put you ahead of the game and the regulators.
Once you've completed your purchase for a downloadable product, you can download it by:
If a voicemail qualifies you to leave a Foti, because it has first and last name and nothing else, but you leave the Zortman, is there an issue, or are you always safe with the Zortman?
Must we say the mini-Miranda every time we make a connection with a responsible party, even if it’s only minutes later or on the same day?
A recent federal decision suggested that the Foti message violates the FCDPA—third-party disclosure—unless the message is left in very limited circumstances. Many experts in the area recommend leaving the Zortman message instead: ‘You have an important message from ABC law firm; this is a call from a debt collector. Please call—phone number.” Do we stick to Foti, thereby significantly limiting the instances in which a voicemail can be left? Do we go with Zortman and risk a meaningful disclosure violation? What are firms doing nationwide?
How will Gager v. Dell impact FDCPA CA-1 and -3, where a prior express consent was obtained through written agreement, but later, orally revoked?
Is there any problem if we program our dialer to send all voicemails to another dialer to call and leave our CID only and hang up?
Any states where we’re better off not calling at all? And are all states covered under the presumption to not allow the dialer to call a cell phone?
For Washington State, should attempts or contacts be considered for the debt collection contact restrictions?
Does Puerto Rico require collection letters to be sent in Spanish?
Does the notice on a collection letter, to the effect of that if the debt has been discharged in bankruptcy, mean that the letter should not be considered a demand for payment? Is that sufficient protection against a claim of violation, of the discharge and injunction, and any related FCDPA claim?
Appendix A: Relevant Court Cases
Appendix B: Regulations
Product: PDF Download
Pages: 44 pp
Published: September 2013
Don Maurice is a partner at Maurice & Needleman, P.C. with offices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He regularly defends FDCPA, TCPA, FCRA and UDAAP in both individual and class actions. He served as amicus counsel in the recently decided Supreme Court FDCPA case Marx v. General Revenue. He currently serves as vice chair of the Debt Collection Practices and Bankruptcy Subcommittee of the American Bar Association’s Consumer Financial Services Committee, Business Law Section. Don is admitted to the Bars of New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia where he regularly practices. You can read Don’s blog at consumerfsblog.com or follow him on Twitter @dsmaurice.
John Rossman is a shareholder and Chair of the Creditors' Remedies Practice Group at Moss & Barnett. Mr. Rossman is authorized to practice in fourteen different courts and jurisdictions across the country and he defends FDCPA and related cases nationwide. He is the co-host of the collection industry podcast The Debt Collection Drill featured on insideARM and is also a frequent writer and lecturer on debt collection issues.
John Bedard is the managing attorney of Bedard Law Group, P.C. located in Atlanta, Georgia. John represents creditors and collection agencies nationwide helping them stay in compliance with state and federal law. He also manages the nationwide litigation for several collection agencies and focuses his litigation practice on FDCPA, TCPA, and FCRA defense. He received his law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law and his undergraduate degree in Economics from the Pennsylvania State University.