Vincent v. The Money Store
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
736 F.3d 88 (2013)
- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
The Money Store (defendant) contracted with the law firm Moss, Codilis, Stawiarski, Morris, Schneider & Prior LLP to prepare and mail notices to borrowers who had defaulted on their home loans. These notices were required before The Money Store could foreclose. Moss would generate the breach letters based on The Money Store’s information, but it did nothing else in the collection of the debts. Moss sent the letters as a means of leveraging its status as a law firm to encourage payment. The letters were on Moss letterhead, stated that Moss had been retained on the debt, and that the firm was authorized by The Money Store to contact the borrower. Vincent (plaintiff) sued The Money Store for violating the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. The act did not usually apply to creditors unless those creditors falsely used the name of a third person to attempt to collect the debt. Vincent claimed that The Money Store had falsely used Moss’s name to collect the debt and therefore could be held liable under the act. The court ruled in favor of The Money Store, and Vincent appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Katzmann, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
