Hillsboro, OR
Bankruptcy and debt Lawyer at Hillsboro, OR
Practice Areas: Bankruptcy & Debt, Consumer Protection
OUTCOME: Jury verdict against McGavic and Finney but not Johnson Mark LLC
Successful jury trial against defendants for suing consumer on time barred Capital One account. JM was let out by the judge. Established a three year sol for Capital One accounts and that Plaintiff was ... sued for an inflated amount.
OUTCOME: Lost appeal on defense, prevailed on limiting attorney fees awared to plaintiff.
Defendant sued by purchaser of Chase credit card account. Contract required application of DE law and defendant asserted three year DE statute of limitations. Plaintiff argued that Defendant had to res ... ide in DE during the three years and absence from DE, despite never having been to DE, tolled the limitations period. Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff and held (unnecessarily b/c Defendant had lost either way) that it was unfair to have an infinite limitations period and therefore "fair play" required application of the Oregon six year period. Notably the Court of Appeals agreed with Defendant that the purchaser of the debt did not qualify for attorney fees under the attorney fee provision of the contract as they were not the bank and DE law did not include the purchaser of the debt within the scope of DE's banking attorney fee statue. Plaintiff was entitled to fees in an amount up to 20% of the liability under another DE attorney fee statute. This is an important development in debtor/creditor relations as not all states have a second source of attorney fees permitting a debt purchaser to recover fees.
OUTCOME: Defeated defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Ruling on summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on requirement of debt collector to send the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act "g" notice (notice of right of consumer to dispute debt and request veri ... fication). Debt collector incorrectly addressed the envelope and argued that sending was all that was required, receipt did not matter at all. Court ruled that receipt was important and incorrectly addressing letter did not meet requirement to send notice to consumer.
OUTCOME: Prevailed on Appeal
Prevailed on statute of limitations (SOL) defense applying VA SOL. Card holder agreement provided fees to bank not card holder. Denied fees under ORS 20.096. Appealed denial and established ORS 20.096 ... entitles successful defendant to fees when contract does not grant fees to defendant.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
