Cacace v. Lucas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an overstatement of debt “that was a mistake” violated FDCPA
• holding attorney was in the debt collection business within the meaning of the FDCPA even though debt collection did not form a principal part of his practice, where the volume of his collection activities was substantial
• awarding $1000 in statutory damages where the defendant “violated the FDCPA in several respects” and continued sending improper collection letters even “after the impropriety of such conduct was brought to his attention”
• “An attorney who regularly collects debts is a debt collector within the meaning of the ‘FDCPA.’”
• “An attorney who regularly collects debts is a debt collector within the meaning of the “FDCPA”.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).