Evory v. RJM ACQUISITIONS FUNDING LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that debt collectors could protect the unsophisticated consumer against falsely believing a set-offer is time-sensitive and non-renewable by including clarifying language to the effect of: \We are not obligated to renew this offer.\
• noting that courts should dismiss a complaint where the plaintiff’s pleading rests on the text of an attached communication that is facially compliant with the FDCPA
• explaining that the phrase “we are not obligated to renew this offer” sufficiently informs the unsophisticated consumer that there is a renewal possibility but that it is not assured
• stating that the deceptive character of a debt collector’s dunning letter is viewed as a question of fact in the Seventh Circuit, despite other circuits evaluating it as a question of law
• explaining that §§ 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f “do not designate any class of persons ... who can be abused, misled, etc., by debt collectors with impunity,” and emphasizing the words “any person” in § 1692d
• observing that an attorney “would not have to be an expert on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to be able to look it up and discover what” rights a debtor enjoys against unfair and abusive collection practices

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).