People of Michigan v. Charles Flagg Sr

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was no doubt as to who owned the debt where the collection letter identified an entity as the “original creditor” but did not name another potential creditor
• explaining that § 1692g(a)(2) “requires a debt collector to present information about the creditor and the debt in the manner the unsophisticated consumer can understand”
• explaining that § 1692g(a)(2) “requires a debt collector to present information about the creditor and the debt in the manner the unsophisticated consumer can under- stand”
• explaining that § 1692g(a)(2) “requires a debt collector to present information about the creditor and the debt in the manner the unsophisticated consumer can under- stand”
• affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the debt collector
• “the 5 FDCPA does not require use of any specific terminology to identify the creditor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).