Commonwealth v. Solomon, M.

How courts have described this case

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

• providing payment “must be received by our office no later than 5/21/2015”
• “[C]ourts generally have recognized that the FDCPA does not impose a bright-line rule prohibiting debt collectors from attempting to collect on time-barred debt.”
• whether a representation made in the course of debt collection is deceptive “generally is a question of fact”
• “[W]e reject Plaintiff’s claim that the general practice of attempting to collect on time-barred debt is per se unfair or unconscionable in violation of 1692f of the FDCPA.”
• “There is no question that these provisions [of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e] prohibit a debt violation supports a claim for relief. See Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d 1109, 1125 & n.14 (9th Cir. 2014
• offer to “resolve” consumer’s time-barred debt, combined with deadline to accept reduced-payment offer and warning that offer might not be renewed, could mislead unsophisticated consumer regarding the legal status of the debt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).