Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Appendix 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) and (4), Showing Changes Made by Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021 ("CAA"), Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (eff. Dec. 27, 2020) (Sunset December 27, 2022. Changes continue to apply in cases commenced before sunset under subchapter V of Chapter 11.) 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) Pre-CAA Post-CAA...
From Morgan King’s Guide to Abusive Debt Collection Practice
Print This Article
Link to Post:
¶ 3.1(b) The Telephone
In Abrams v. MiraMed Revenue Grp., LLC (S.D. Ind., 2013) the debtor claimed the debt collector contacted her notwithstanding the collector knew or should have known that the debtor was represented by counsel and violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2).
The court said:
"Kirk alleges that MMRG improperly placed 39 telephone calls to his house over a nine-week period in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5); that MMRG improperly attempted to communicate with Mr. Kirk after being informed that Mr. Kirk obtained counsel."
The Act . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Representing Elderly Clients in Bankruptcy – Part 1 of 3
Critical Case Comment – 10th Circuit Says No Default Cures After Month 60
Taxes, Offset, and Mutuality
IRS Updates Guidance for Deductible Business, Charitable, Medical and Moving Expenses
Passing of a Legend
SBRA – The Sequel: Leases in Bankruptcy Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (“CAA”)
Consumers Are Consuming Cash at an Unsustainable Rate
ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Collateral Repossessed Pre-Petition
ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – What Does It Mean to Surrender?
2020 Vision