Join Karel Rocha, Esq. on Thursday, JULY 7, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time for a Reg F update webinar. The webinar will provide your company with a comprehensive update on the following topics:

• 7-in-7 Phone call rules,
• Email and Text Communications,
• Use of Limited Content Messages, and
• CFPB Model Debt Validation Notice.

Mr. Rocha will also be providing an update on the current state of FDCPA litigation in the United States, including the current status of Hunstein v. Preferred Collection (11th Circuit) and various similar lawsuits filed by debtors in other jurisdictions.

This WEBINAR will be LIVE on July 7, 2022 and thereafter available for replay for 60 days. Mr. Rocha will also provide written materials for all attendees who sign up.

The cost of this webinar will be $99.00 per attendee and is expected to last 1.5 to 2 hours. 

LIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION.

Please contact Karel Rocha at krocha@pnbd.com to sign up for the webinar, receive your PayPal link, and to receive your Microsoft Teams Webinar link. We look forward to having you join us for this webinar.

Karel Rocha will be a featured panelist at the Educational Summer Seminar being held at The Venetian, Las Vegas from Friday August 23 to 25, 2019. The subject of the Seminar will be the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), vendor compliance and various legal updates relating to these topics. The event is open to credit unions. Please contact Karel Rocha at (714) 547-2444 or at krocha@pnbd.com if you are interested in attending.

These proposed rules will have a significant impact on debt collections practices in the industry (both for third party debt collectors and first parties that employ them).

Per the CFPB, the proposed rules would:

(1) Establish a clear, bright line rule limiting call attempts (no more than 7 per week, per debt),

(2) Clarify consumer protection requirements for certain consumer-facing debt collection disclosures,

(3) Clarify how debt collectors can communicate with consumers,

(4) Prohibit lawsuits and threats of lawsuits on time-barred debt, and

(5) Require communication with the debtor before engaging in credit reporting.

The proposed rules are 538 pages long and are meant to amend Regulation F, 12 CFR part 1006, which implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and currently contains the procedures for State application for exemption from the provisions of the FDCPA.

The CFPB has established a 90-day comment period for the proposed rules. Please contact us if you would like to discuss the potential impact of these new and wide-ranging proposed rules to your organization.

The CFPB Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be found here.

In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that a business engaged in no more than non-judicial foreclosure proceedings is NOT subject to all of the requirements and prohibitions applicable to “debt collectors” under the FDCPA.

Specifically, the Court held that the defendant, McCarthy & Holthus, (an agent for a foreclosing bank) was only subject to the FDCPA’s prohibitions under 15 USC 1692f(6) which regulates activity relating to enforcement of security interests.

Section 1692f(6) sets forth a prohibition against taking or threatening to take any non-judicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property if:

(A) There is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest;

(B) There is no present intention to take possession of the property; or

(C) The property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement.

The Court further ruled that the other FDCPA prohibitions would not apply to the defendant unless it also engaged in other qualifying “debt collector” activity. The Plaintiff had been attempting to expand the application of all of the FDCPA prohibitions to non-judicial foreclosure activity.

The case is Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus and a copy of the US Supreme Court decision can be accessed here.

Please contact us if you would like to discuss how this new legal decision may affect your business.

Click Here For Registration Information

In reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeal ruled that an employer can unilaterally change the terms of an at-will worker’s employment agreement as long as the following occurs:

1. The employer provides notice of the change, and
2. The alteration does not violate a statute or breach an implied or express contractual agreement.

The court therefore ruled that an “adhesive” agreement to arbitrate can still be enforced so long as there is no evidence of surprise or sharp practice which demonstrates that the agreement is substantively unconscionable.

The case is Diaz v. Sohnen Enterprises and a copy of the Court of Appeal decision can be accessed here.

Please contact us if you would like to discuss how these new laws may affect your business.

This session will feature three attorneys with important legal information on 2019 new laws, new forms, cyber security, cyber insurance and trust elder abuse issues. This program was developed to assist our PWR Brokers and Managers with your legal needs and provide you with timely and relevant information.

Thomas J. Prenovost, Jr. (Tom) will be discussing all aspects of Cyber Security and Insurance Issues and how they relate to real estate companies. In today’s data-driven, litigious world, Errors and Omissions and Cyber Insurance are more important than ever. Learn what to look for before buying insurance, the legal points involving these types of insurance for business, typical coverages and exclusions, and more information to help you increase the financial security of your business.

On August 22, 2018, the California legislature amended the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Assembly Bill 1526 submitted by Assemblymember Ash Kalra) which will now impose strict notice requirements pertaining to written demands sent by debt collectors (which includes original creditors in California) relating to time-barred debt.

This law specifically prohibits debt collectors from sending an initial written communication to any debtor attempting to collect a time-barred debt without providing specified written notices.

Amended California Civil Code Section 1788.14 will require that the first written communication to a debtor (which includes communications sent via fax or email) include one of the following notices:

(1.)“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, [insert name of debt collector] may [continue to] report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid for as long as the law permits this reporting.” (Sent if the debt can still be reported on a debtor’s credit report); OR

(2.)“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it, and we will not report it to any credit reporting agency.” (Sent if the debt can no longer be reported on a debtor’s credit report.)

Assembly Bill 1526 also amended California Civil Code 337 which codifies the 4-year statute of limitations for lawsuits alleging breach of contract and/or book account claims. Amended Section 337 now sets forth that a debt collector may not initiate a lawsuit alleging these claims if the statute of limitations has expired.

Previously, California law allowed such lawsuits to be filed (so long as you were not a “debt buyer”) and required the debtor to allege the passing of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.

The amended statutes will become effective on January 1, 2019 if Governor Jerry Brown approves them (which is expected).

Please contact us if you want to discuss how these new laws may affect your business. The text of the amended California laws can be found here.