Beal v. HIMMEL & BERNSTEIN, LLP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the debt was not subject to the FDCPA because it was a Court Order to pay attorney fees for post-divorce litigation
• noting that because court-ordered attorneys’ fees did not arise out of a consumer transaction, those attorneys’ fees were not debts for FDCPA purposes
• explaining “courts have rejected arguments that debts arising out of court ordered obligations implicate the FDCPA.”
• “The only question of relevance is the character of the obligation owed by plaintiff.... [It] is not a consumer debt ... because it did not arise out of any consumer transaction in which he engaged.”
• “[T]he first question in any claim brought under the FDCPA is whether the allegedly violative conduct was used in an attempt to collect a ‘debt’ within the meaning of the FDCPA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).