Garrido v. Puente

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “collector” who charged “amount” not “expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law” was a “debt collector” under federal act
• holding that a mortgage servicer was a collector under the MCDCA
• concluding that the plaintiff failed to plead a valid MCPA claim based on a failure to plead reliance, even where the plaintiffs had conclusorily alleged that they “reasonably relied upon the direct and indirect material acts and actions of” the defendant
• finding that defendant violated Section 14-202(11) and accordingly vacating district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s Section 14-202(8) claim
• noting that the MCDCA’s broad definition of “collector” controls and “by collecting borrowers’ monthly mortgage payments, Carrington is collecting a debt” and “counts as a ‘collector’ under the MCDCA”
• finding that convenience fees qualify as an “amount” under the FDCPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).