Gary L. Veach v. Charles R. Sheeks

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a debt collector communication was misleading where it failed to identify the principal balance as separate from treble damages, which had not yet been awarded by the court
• holding that a debt collector may not represent that treble damages are part of the \ 'remaining principal balance' of a claimed debt\ until a court actually grants a judgment and authorizes those damages
• holding that a debt collector may not repre- sent that treble damages are part of the “‘remaining princi- pal balance’ of a claimed debt” until a court actually grants a judgment and authorizes those damages
• applying the Act to the content of “a summons and complaint for Indiana small claims court proceedings”
• letter stated that the consumer owed additional, unspecified attorney’s fees and court costs which was untrue because a court had not ruled on the matter
• notice of claim filed in small claims court misleading because it failed to specify amount of debt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).