Delev & Associates
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Before Extending Credit
    • Civil Litigation
    • Commercial Collections UCC
    • Consumer Collections
    • Consumer Resource Center
    • Creditors’ Rights
  • About
    • Gregory D. Delev
    • Brian T. Giles
    • Donald W. Harper
  • Articles
  • Newsletters
  • Blog
  • Contact
Select Page

Location, location, location

by greg delev | Apr 24, 2015 | Contract Disputes

Some people treat a credit card as found money, and as if hitting that maximum limit is a goal to be achieved. Once accomplished, some consumers will default on the card and hope that the entire problem will somehow go away. In many of those situations, the process of debt collection will take place.

Last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision made by a lower court in the Northern District of Ohio involving credit card debt. The case has a couple of interesting facets to it. The debtor-plaintiff alleges that a debt collection law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by asking for attorneys’ fees.

You see, the plaintiff lives here in Ohio (where attorneys’ fees are not included in consumer contracts), while the credit card agreement included a choice-of-law clause that designated Utah (where attorneys’ fees can be included). So the case essentially boils down to this: which state’s laws are to be used to decide this credit card dispute?

The plaintiff claims Ohio law should hold sway, and that because Ohio doesn’t allow the collection of attorneys’ fees, that the collections law firm violated FDCPA by seeking the fees. The plaintiff argues that the bank that issued the card chose Utah unilaterally.

The lower court had granted a motion for judgment in the case, but the Sixth Circuit has ruled that the record simply doesn’t have enough evidence to determine which state’s laws should be applied. The court noted that the credit card contract was plausibly agreed to in Ohio, where the plaintiff-debtor lives, but that without evidence, it can’t be certain that Ohio law should apply.

So the Sixth Circuit has sent the case back to the lower court, telling it to either get the plaintiff to answer questions that could resolve the issue or to determine via limited discovery where most of the performance or transactions involving the card occurred.

Please see our Consumer Collections page to get more information about how Delev & Associates, LLC helps financial institutions collect delinquent accounts.

Recent Posts

  • Can you recover the costs for materials with a mechanic’s lien?
  • Retaining property from a borrower with financial troubles
  • How does foreclosure work in Ohio?
  • What are a creditors’ collection options?
  • What are the remedies for a contract breach?

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014

Categories

  • Business Litigation
  • Commercial Collections
  • Contract Disputes
  • Firm News
  • Uncategorized

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed