ZANAH QASEM
v.
ACCOUNT SERVICES COLLECTIONS, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not require a debt collector to validate a debt before commencing collection activities; validation is only required upon the consumer's timely dispute.
[1] The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not require a debt collector to validate or investigate a debt's validity before initiating collection efforts; the statute pe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Nowhere in the FDCPA does the statute specifically require a debt collector to validate a debt prior to seeking collection of such debt. In fact, § 1692g(a)(3) specifically allows a debt collector to assume a debt to be valid if not disputed by the consumer within thirty days of receiving such notice.”
Court's reasoning regarding statutory interpretation of the FDCPA's validation requirements
Zanah Qasem appealed from a county court judgment in Miami-Dade County involving a dispute with Account Services Collections, Inc., a debt collection …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Cornette v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 280 F. Supp. 3d 1362, 1369– 70 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (“Nowhere in the FDCPA does the statute specifically require a debt collector to validate a debt prior to seeking collection of such debt. In fact, § 1692g(a)(3) specifically allows a debt collector to assume a debt to be valid if not disputed by the consumer within thirty days of receiving such notice. A reading of the FDCPA that requires pre-collection investigation would therefore render § 1692g(a)(3) superfluous, especially as applied to the first communication between a debt collector and consumer.”); see also Stanley v. Kan. Couns. of Kan. City, 639 F. App’x 589, 591 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Other than Stanley's own conclusory and self-serving allegations that she did not owe the amount that Kansas Counselors was attempting to collect, there is no evidence that Kansas Counselors used any false, deceptive, or misleading representation about the amount of the debt, threatened to take illegal action, or attempted to collect any amount that was not authorized.”).
2