Hart v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 16-17126 (11th Cir. 2017).
A debt collector’s voicemail is a “communication” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and initial communications that do not contain a “mini-Miranda” warning violates the Act. However, a voicemail that identifies the caller and the purpose of the call is a “meaningful disclosure” under the Act; identification of the person making the call is not required.
Slater v. United States Steel Corporation, Case No. 12-15548 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
A court must examine all circumstances – not just failure to disclose assets on bankruptcy schedules – when determining whether to apply judicial estoppel in civil proceedings subsequent to a debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Diaz, Case No. 3D16-1927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
A final judgment, including a foreclosure final judgment, is typically void only if “(1) the trial court lackssubject matter jurisdiction; (2) the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over theparty; or (3) if, in the proceedings leading up to the judgment, there is a violation
of the due process guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Additionally, a party is only entitled to damages and is not entitled to vacate a foreclosure judgment when the requirements of Florida Statute section 702.036 have been met.
McIntosh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 5D16-2189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
A foreclosing plaintiff must, as conditions precedent, comply with HUD regulations that limit acceleration and foreclosure when the mortgage incorporates the regulations.