Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, four Maryland consumers, filed suit against Santander and its agents, alleging that defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.1692-1692p, by engaging in prohibited collection practices when collecting on plaintiffs’ automobile loans. The court affirmed the district court's grant of Santander's motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Santander qualified as a “debt collector” subject to the FDCPA. The court concluded that the FDCPA generally does not regulate creditors when they collect debt on their own account and that, on the facts alleged by plaintiffs, Santander became a creditor when it purchased the loans before engaging in the challenged practices. View "Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, four Maryland consumers, filed suit against Santander and its agents, alleging that defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.1692-1692p, by engaging in prohibited collection practices when collecting on plaintiffs’ automobile loans. The court affirmed the district court's grant of Santander's motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Santander qualified as a “debt collector” subject to the FDCPA. The court concluded that the FDCPA generally does not regulate creditors when they collect debt on their own account and that, on the facts alleged by plaintiffs, Santander became a creditor when it purchased the loans before engaging in the challenged practices. View "Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Delbert alleging that Delbert violated debt collection practices. The district court granted Delbert's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 4. The court concluded, however, that the arbitration agreement in this case is unenforceable where it purportedly fashions a system of alternative dispute resolution while simultaneously rendering that system all but impotent through a categorical rejection of the requirements of state and federal law. The court went on to conclude that the FAA does not protect the sort of arbitration agreement that unambiguously forbids an arbitrator from even applying the applicable law. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hayes v. Delbert Services Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wells Fargo, alleging that his mortgage agreement, providing him with a loan far in excess of his home’s actual value, was an “unconscionable contract” under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code 46A–1–101 et seq. The court agreed with the district court that the amount of a mortgage loan, by itself, cannot show substantive unconscionability under West Virginia law, and that plaintiff has not otherwise made that showing. The court concluded, however, that the Act allows for claims of “unconscionable inducement” even when the substantive terms of a contract are not themselves unfair. Accordingly, the court remanded so that the district court may consider this issue in the first instance. View "McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that HRFC violated the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-1001 et seq., breached a retail installment sales contract, and violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA), Md. Code. Ann., Com. Law 14-201 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to HRFC. The court held that HRFC’s mere failure to disclose an interest rate below CLEC’s statutory maximum is not a distinct violation of section 12-1003(a) for which liability may be imposed; HRFC complied with section 12-1020’s notice requirement and HRFC did not fail to properly cure its error; and the court rejected plaintiff's contention that because the contract incorporates CLEC’s provisions, HRFC is liable for breach of contract for any deviation from CLEC, “regardless of whether HRFC properly cured the failure to comply” with the statute. The court held, however, that a jury could find that HRFC's conduct, at least in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to abuse or harass plaintiff. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order in regard to the MCDCA claim. The court affirmed as to the CLEC and breach of contract claims. View "Askew v. HRFC, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed separate class action complaints against GMAC, alleging violations of Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-1001 et seq.; breach of contract; declaratory and injunctive relief; restitution/unjust enrichment; and violation of Maryland's Consumer Protect Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 13-101 et seq. At issue was whether borrowers may seek a remedy after their creditors violate the repossession notice requirements in the CLEC. The court concluded that the CLEC requires borrowers to have repaid more than the original principal amount of their loans before they are entitled to relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to GMAC. View "Gardner v. GMAC, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MBCC, alleging claims arising from MBCC's failure to timely release a lien placed on her residence after she satisfied her underlying debt obligation. The district court granted summary judgment to MBCC and plaintiff appealed. The court rejected plaintiff's claims for breach of contract; slander of title; violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), Va. Code 59.1-200; violation of Virginia Code 55-66.3; and declaratory judgment. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. The court noted the substandard nature of MBCC’s conduct in releasing the lien on plaintiff’s home. While the various statutory barriers cited negate plaintiff’s claims, had she acted diligently she may have had viable claims at least as to breach of contract and Va. Code 55-66.3(B). Finally, the court stated that MBCC would be well served to review its business practices to forestall such claims in future cases. View "Poindexter v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp." on Justia Law

The parties’ dispute involved various “credit repair” services provided to plaintiff consumers, for which some of the disclosure requirements of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA, or the Act), 15 U.S.C. 1679 et seq., were not met. At issue was the district court's denial of a motion to vacate certain aspects of an arbitration award. The court held that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by determining that plaintiffs failed to prove actual damages under the Act; the court rejected plaintiffs’ various arguments regarding their request for additional attorneys’ fees and costs; and the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his contractually delegated authority under section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jones v. Dancel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, consumers who purchased joint health supplements produced and sold by GNC and Rite Aid, filed suit alleging that GNC and Rite Aid violated the consumer protection laws of various states by marketing these supplements as promoting joint health, even though many scientific studies have shown that the ingredients they contain, glucosamine and chondroitin, are no more effective than a placebo in treating the symptoms of osteoarthritis. The district court granted GNC and Rite Aid's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed, concluding that marketing statements, like the ones at issue here, that accurately describe the findings of duly qualified and reasonable scientific experts are not literally false. View "Brown v. GNC" on Justia Law

Oteria Moses borrowed $1,000 under a loan agreement that was illegal under North Carolina law. When Moses filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, CashCall, Inc., the loan servicer, filed a proof of claim. Moses subsequently filed an adversary proceeding against CashCall seeking a declaration that the loan was illegal and also seeking money damages for CashCall’s allegedly illegal debt collection activities. CashCall filed a motion to compel arbitration. The bankruptcy court denied CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration and retained jurisdiction over both Moses’ first claim for declaratory relief and second claim for damages. On appeal, the district court affirmed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s exercise of jurisdiction to retain in bankruptcy Moses’ first claim; but (2) erred in retaining in bankruptcy Moses’ claim for damages and denying CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration of that claim, as this claim was not constitutionally core. Remanded with instruction to grant CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration on Moses’ second claim for damages. View "Moses v. CashCall, Inc." on Justia Law