Consumer Protection Lemon Law; equitable reliefRead More »
Tag Archives: Consumer Protection Digest
2010AP2298 Payday Loan Store of Wisconsin, Inc., v. Mount
Consumer Protection Payday loans; unconscionabilityRead More »
2010AP2032 Avudria v. McGlone Mortgage Co., Inc.
Consumer Protection Banking A borrower must suffer at least some actual injury or damage to sue under sec. 224.80(2) because a mortgage broker did not use the correct forms prepared by the DFI. “To read the statute as Avudria suggests, as a strict liability statute permitting a private cause of action for a mere technical violation of Wis. Stat. ch. ...Read More »
10-3184 Carter v. AMC, LLC
Consumer Protection FDCPA; lessor’s agent A landlord’s agent is not a debt collector under the FDCPA. “We conclude that, although one usually ‘obtains’ a debt by purchasing it, this is not the only way to do so. A servicing agent ‘obtains’ a debt in the sense that it acquires the authority to collect the money on behalf of another. Cf. ...Read More »
2010AP826 Marquez v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
Certifications Consumer Protection Lemon Law; good faith; burden of proof Pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.61 (2009-10) this court certifies the appeal in this case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for its review and determination. What is the proper burden of proof to be applied to an allegation of intentional bad faith on the part of a consumer in a ...Read More »
07-C0765 Thermal Design, Inc. v. ASHRAE
Consumer Protection Deceptive trade practices A manufacturer is not sufficiently likely to prevail in a deceptive trade practices claim against a corporation that publishes industry standards and guidelines to warrant a preliminary injunction. “Here, the gravamen of Thermal Design’s allegations is that ASHRAE has made a statement or representation to the public that is untrue, deceptive or misleading. Because the ...Read More »
10-1376 O’Rourke v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC
Consumer Protection FDCPA The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not extend to communications meant to mislead a judge, rather than the consumer. “[W]when read in light of the Act’s purpose and numerous provisions, the prohibitions are clearly limited to communications directed to the consumer and do not apply to state judges. The Act is meant ‘to protect consumers against ...Read More »
10-2045 Tinsley v. Integrity Financial Partners, Inc.
Consumer Protection FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692c(c) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not prohibit debt collectors from contacting a debtor’s legal counsel as well as the debtor himself, once the debtor refuses to pay. “Subsections (a) and (b) provide valuable context. Tinsley’s argument makes hash of them, because if the word ‘consumer’ is replaced by ‘lawyer’ (whether because ...Read More »
09-329 Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McCoy
Consumer Protection TILA Regulation Z did not require Chase to provide McCoy with a change-in-terms notice before implementing the agreement term allowing it to raise his interest rate, up to a pre-set maximum, following delinquency or default. The Board has made clear in its amicus brief to this Court that, in its view, Chase was not required to give McCoy ...Read More »
09-2182 Catalan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.
Consumer Protection RESPA A qualified written request under RESPA need only identify the borrower, the account, and include a reasonably stated request for information. “RESPA does not require any magic language before a servicer must construe a written communication from a borrower as a qualified written request and respond accordingly. The language of the provision is broad and clear. To ...Read More »
2010AP823 In re the award of attorney fees: Kauffmann v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Consumer Protection Lemon Law; attorney fees This case involves a challenge to the circuit court’s award of attorney’s fees. The appellant, Mark A. Kauffmann, argues that the circuit court erred by not determining that he was the prevailing party and by not awarding him one-hundred percent of his attorney’s fees. We conclude, however, that the circuit court properly exercised its ...Read More »
10CV153 Daniels v. The Equitable Bank, S.S.B.
Consumer Protection TILA It violates the Truth in Lending Act for a lender to have a borrower sign a postdated certificate stating he did not wish to rescind the loan. “First, by having plaintiff sign a post-dated form electing not to rescind, Equitable violated the TILA requirement that it clearly disclose to plaintiff that he could rescind anytime in the ...Read More »
09-2455 Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
Consumer Protection TILA A misstatement on a mortgage must be material to entitle the borrower to rescission. “As to the district court’s similar conclusion that the Bontes conceded the validity of U.S. Bank’s arguments by failing to respond, they have yet again provided precious little in the way of argument. The Bontes do assert in their brief that their response ...Read More »
2009AP2716 Braunschweig, et al. v. Banco Services Inc.
Consumer Protection FDCPA; attorney fees Erik and Stacy Hanson appeal from orders granting their motion for summary judgment in part but denying them damages and attorney fees against the Madden Law Firm (MLF). MLF cross appeals the order determining that it violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(11), 1692g(a) (2006). We affirm the orders and ...Read More »
2008AP3160 Rayner v. Reeves Custom Builders Inc., et al.
Consumer Protection Home Improvement Practices Act; double damages Arthur J. Reeves appeals from a trial court judgment awarding Lawrence and Sally Rayner $100,000 in compensatory damages. The award stemmed from a stipulation dismissing the Rayners’ claims against Reeves for breach of contract and numerous violations of the Home Improvement Practices Act, Wis. Admin. Code ch. ATCP 110 (ATCP 110). The ...Read More »