People v. DeJana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that mortgage statements may constitute communications under the FDCPA and the FCCPA
• noting that TILA communication can violate FDCPA if sent “in connection with the collection of a debt”
• suggesting that “the history of the parties” reflects whether communication was a debt collection attempt
• holding monthly mortgage statements required by TILA can constitute efforts to collect debt
• acknowledging that “a communication can ‘have dual purposes,’ such as providing a consumer with information and demanding payment on a debt” (quoting Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2012))
• debt collection activity plausibly stated where lender sent mortgage statement noting it was “an attempt to collect a debt,” asked for payment of a certain amount by a certain date, and provided for a late fee

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).