United States Third Circuit

In plaintiff's class action suit against a law firm, arising from an underlying mortgage foreclosure action against the plaintiff brought by the law firm on behalf of a bank, district court's dismissal of the complaint in concluding that, because plaintiff's attorney protected her form any unfair or unconscionable means used to collect the debt, plaintiff had failed to state viable Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims is vacated and remanded as, the district court did not have the benefit of plaintiff's concession that her claims were predicated only upon section 1692f(1), which defines the collection of an unauthorized debt as a per se "unfair or unconscionable" debt collection method. Here, the only inquiry under section 1692 is whether the amount collected was expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

Appellate Information

• Argued 09/14/2010
• Decided 01/12/2011
• Published 01/12/2011

Judges

• SLOVITER

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Lewis G. Adler, Andrew C. Sayles