During the financial chaos of the Pandemic, Governor Newsome introduced proposed the California Consumer Financial Protection Law, which was ultimately passed on August 31, 2020, and which ultimately created California’s brand-spankin’ new, Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, or “DFPI”. So, the question is does the agency live up to the name of the law that created it — i.e., does it offer us anything in the way of consumer financial protection?[Read more…] about Will the DFPI Protect Californians From Debt Collectors?
On September 6, 2016, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Orange County, published not one, but two significant holdings in this debt collection case.
First, the Court determined that in Orange County, California Code of Civil Procedure “Section 98 requires the declarant to be available for personal service,” and Midland Funding, LLC’s failure to comply with this requirement rendered its Section 98 declaration inadmissible. (As of February 15 2019, the California Supreme Court has now sanctified this position in its Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC decision.)
Second, and perhaps more significantly, the Court held that debt buyer Midland Funding, LLC’s documentary evidence obtained by Midland from the original creditor, was inadmissible hearsay that was not properly authenticated and did not qualify for the business records exception to the hearsay rule.[Read more…] about Midland Funding, LLC v. Romero
On February 15, 2019, Supreme Court of California held that, normally, a declarant for Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (or anyone else for that matter) utilizing Civil Code § 98, must be physically available for personal service at the address provided in the declaration.[Read more…] about Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC