Texas Commercial Law Firm

The four year statute of limitations applies to an action for damages for wrongful foreclosure. Gonzalez v. Lockwood Lumber Company, 668 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e).

1. The FDCPA “Miranda Warning”. Section 1692e(11) of the FDCPA requires a debt collector to disclose in all communications (written or oral) with a debtor (except those made to acquire location information) that “the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” Several cases have held that this so-called “Miranda Warning” must be given in every communication with the debtor. Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, Inc., 886 F.2d 22 (2nd Cir. 1989); Carroll v. Wolfpoff & Abramson, 961 F.2d 459 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 298, 121 L.Ed.2d 222 (1992); Frey v. Gangwash, 970 F.2d 1516 (6th Cir. 1992). Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 383 (D.Del. 1991); Seabrook v. Onondaga Bur. of Medical Economics, 705 F.Supp. 81, 87 (N.D.N.Y.1989); but see: Pressley v. Capital Credit & Collection Service, Inc., 760 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that a follow-up notice was not a communication and therefore did not require the “Miranda Warning”). This requirement is separate and distinct from the 30-day validation notice (discussed below) which is only required to be given in a debt collector's initial communication with a consumer, or within 5 days thereafter.

Next Page>>> |Previous Page>>>