Coleman v. Gaetz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that debt collector violated FDCPA by failing to disclose that a partial payment on a time-barred debt could result in the reviva of the statute of limitations
• discussing attempts to collect debts by suing or threatening to sue to collect a consumer debt when the applicable statute of limitations bars such a lawsuit
• discussing attempts to collect debts by suing or threatening to sue to collect a consumer debt when the applicable statute of limitations bars such a lawsuit
• granting summary judgment to plaintiff where defendant’s dunning letter failed to warn debtor about the risk of losing the protection of the relevant statute of limitations
• discussing the “danger that a debtor who accepts the offered terms of settlement will, by doing so, waive his otherwise absolute defense under the statute of limitations”
• finding “[t]he carefully crafted language, chosen to obscure from the debtor that the law prohibits the collector from suing to collect this debt or even from threatening to do so, is the sort of misleading tactic the FDCPA prohibits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).