Tilatitsky v. Medicredit, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Zazueta v. Med. Data Sys., Inc.

    Case No. 4:17-CV-2796-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jul. 2, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    A consumer's rights are overshadowed or contradicted "when a debt-collection letter conveys information in a confusing or contradictory fashion so as to cloud the required message with uncertainty." Tilatitsky v. Medicredit, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-811-JCH, 2016 WL 5906819, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2016) (quoting Founie v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No 4:14-CV-816-RWS, 2014 WL 6607197, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2014)). Plaintiff alleges Debt Collector's representative overshadowed her right to dispute or request verification of the debt when the representative "demanded [p]laintiff pay the debt on three dates within the relevant dispute period."

  2. Hanford v. Franklin Collection Serv., Inc.

    Case No. 4:17-CV-2005-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. May. 9, 2018)   Cited 4 times
    Dismissing § 1692g claim where "nothing in the [collection letter] request[ed] payment during the 30-day dispute window" and rejecting the argument that credit reporting language overshadowed or contradicted plaintiff's § 1692g rights by leaving open the possibility that the debt collector would report the account even if it received a validation request

    A consumer's rights are overshadowed or contradicted "when a debt-collection letter conveys information in a confusing or contradictory fashion so as to cloud the required message with uncertainty." Tilatitsky v. Medicredit, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-811-JCH, 2016 WL 5906819, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2016) (quoting Founie, 2014 WL 6607197, at *3). Plaintiff alleges the Letter overshadows or contradicts his right to dispute the debt in four ways.