Royal Fin. Grp., LLC v. Perkins

3 Citing cases

  1. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Schultz

    449 S.W.3d 427 (E.D. Mo. 2014)

    The purpose of the FDCPA is to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) ; Royal Financial Group. LLC v. Perkins, 414 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo.App.E.D.2013). Importantly, the question of whether the consumer actually owes the alleged debt has no bearing on FDCPA claims.

  2. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Schultz

    449 S.W.3d 427 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 7 times

    The purpose of the FDCPA is to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) ; Royal Financial Group. LLC v. Perkins, 414 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo.App.E.D.2013). Importantly, the question of whether the consumer actually owes the alleged debt has no bearing on FDCPA claims.

  3. Mueller v. Barton

    No. 4:13-CV-2523 CAS (E.D. Mo. Sep. 12, 2014)   Cited 6 times
    Discussing Skaggs

    Plaintiff argues that Barton would be liable for collecting a debt his employer had sold even if he had no knowledge of the sale because the FDCPA imposes strict liability, citing Royal Financial Group, LLC v. Perkins, 414 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). Plaintiff asserts that Barton's knowledge of the sale to Senex is not a necessary predicate to his liability under the FDCPA.