Patricia Evankavitch v. Green Tree Servicing LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that § 1692k(c) “explicitly places the burden on the debt collector to prove that it acted unintentionally and had procedures in place to avoid such an error”
• reasoning that use of “unless” in another section of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(3), was “telltale language . . . indicative of an affirmative defense” (citing United States v. Franchi-Forlando, 838 F.2d 585, 591 (1st Cir. 1988) (Breyer, J.))
• reiterating that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their FDCPA claims
• examining the “structure and . . . parallels” of a statute to determine the meaning of its terms
• reiterating, in an FDCPA action, the “common-sense” default rule that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their claims, whereas the debt collector carries the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses
• “[T]he FDCPA generally prohibits a debt collector from contacting third parties, with the debt collector’s ability to seek location information framed as an exception to this general prohibition,”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).