Question Title

* 1.  Do you have concerns about the lack of clarity surrounding statutes of limitation (SOL) and collection of out-of-statute (OOS) debt created by the court system?

Question Title

* 2.  In many states, a partial payment or written promise to pay may restart or revive the SOL.
  • Do you feel that you sufficiently understand the applicable state laws in this area and are able to incorporate the rules into your collections processes?

Question Title

*
  • Does state law and judicial precedent already complicate required disclosures?

Question Title

* 3.  If given a choice between state and federal regulation of OOS debt, which would you prefer?
  • Do you prefer that the actions which result in revival be defined by each individual state?

Question Title

*
  • Would you prefer a single uniform federal standard?

Question Title

*
  • Do you consider an approach using both state and federal requirements workable?

Question Title

* 4.  If you operate in the following states, do you feel the required out-of-statute disclosure is easy to use in connection with your collection efforts?
  • California

Question Title

*
  • Connecticut

Question Title

*
  • Massachusetts

Question Title

*
  • Nevada (for certain hospital debt)

Question Title

*
  • New Mexico

Question Title

*
  • New York (and New York City)

Question Title

*
  • Vermont

Question Title

*
  • West Virginia

Question Title

* 5.  Do you have any concerns about your ability to fit a state and a federal OOS disclosure on a single letter?

Question Title

* 6.  Are there any specific state statutes with which you think the federal OOS disclosure(s) could conflict or duplicate?

Question Title

* 7.  Does a specific state have a disclosure that is most workable?

Question Title

* 8.  Do you have concerns about a standard that restricts or otherwise regulates (e.g., via a required disclosure) collection of out-of-statute debt when a collector “knows or should know” that a debt is OOS?

Question Title

* 9.  Do you believe this could result in non-attorneys having to make legal determinations regarding such things as the status of a debt (i.e. whether it is OOS)?

Question Title

* 10.  Do you currently use attorneys or non-attorneys to make these determinations?

Question Title

* 11.  In general, do you think the CFPB’s SNPRM could cause non-attorney collectors to have to make legal determinations regarding such things as the status of a debt (i.e. whether it is OOS) and whether a particular federal or state OOS disclosure must be made to a consumer?

Question Title

* 12.  In the SNPRM, OOS disclosures must be included in the “first communication, if any, with the consumer on or after the date on which the debt collector knows or should know that the debt became time barred,” AND on any validation notice.
  • Is it a problem to have to include it in a first communication?

Question Title

*
  • Is it a problem to include in a validation notice?

Question Title

* 13.  After the initial communication and after validation, disclosures must be included in the next communication, if any, after the debt collector “knows or should know that the debt became time barred."
  • Is this a problem?

Question Title

* 14.  Do you believe the proposal will add costs in any of the following areas? If so, can you estimate how much?
  • Litigation costs –

Question Title

*
  • Legal and programming costs –

Question Title

*
  • Training costs –

Question Title

*
  • Ongoing compliance costs –

Question Title

*
  • Ongoing system updates –

Question Title

*
  • Direct costs of disclosures –

Question Title

*
  • Potential costs of increased audits or monitoring –

Question Title

*
  • Reduced collections of OOS debt - (CFPB analyses may conflict on this point) –

Question Title

*
  • Other costs (e.g., increased phone charges)

Question Title

* The SNPRM includes the following disclosures:
  • Proposed Model Form B-4 is a validation notice that includes a time-barred debt disclosure, for use by debt collectors providing only the disclosure required under § 1006.26(c)(1)(i) (i.e., if the right to bring a legal action against the consumer on a time-barred debt cannot be revived under applicable law). The disclosure on proposed Model Form B-4 reads as follows: “The law limits how long you can be sued for a debt. Because of the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it.”
  • Proposed Model Forms B-5 through B-7 are validation notices that include time-barred debt and revival disclosures, for use by debt collectors providing the disclosures required under § 1006.26(c)(1)(i) and (ii). The proposed model forms contain revival disclosures tailored to the different circumstances in which time-barred debts could be revived under applicable law.

Specifically:

• The disclosure on proposed Model Form B-5 provides: “The law limits how long you can be sued for a debt. If you do nothing or speak to us about this debt, we will not sue you to collect it. This is because the debt is too old. BUT if you make a payment or acknowledge in writing that you owe this debt, then we can sue you to collect it.” Proposed Model Form B-5 would be for use by debt collectors collecting time-barred debts if applicable law permits revival when a consumer makes a payment or acknowledges the debt in writing.

• The disclosure on proposed Model Form B-6 provides: “The law limits how long you can be sued for a debt. If you do nothing or speak to us about this debt, we will not sue you to collect it. This is because the debt is too old. BUT if you make a payment, then we can sue you to collect it.” Proposed Model Form B-6 would be for use by debt collectors collecting time-barred debts if applicable law permits revival only when a consumer makes a payment.

• The disclosure on proposed Model Form B-7 provides: “The law limits how long you can be sued for a debt. If you do nothing or speak to us about this debt, we will not sue you to collect it. This is because the debt is too old. BUT if you acknowledge in writing that you owe this debt, then we can sue you to collect it.” Proposed Model Form B-7 would be for use by debt collectors if applicable law permits revival only when a consumer acknowledges the debt in writing.

15.  Would you prefer a single model form rather than four?

Question Title

* 16.  Do these model forms in general help to provide clarity?

Question Title

* 17.  Are there any specific concerns you have with any of these models?

Question Title

* 18.  Do you have any suggestions for improving the model forms?

Question Title

* 19.  Does the SNPRM cause any concerns about the ability to provide disclosures in a timely manner?

Question Title

* 20.  Does the SNPRM cause any concerns about the ability to provide disclosures in an accurate manner?

Question Title

* 21.  Are there any problems associated with the requirement for oral disclosures?

Question Title

* 22.  Do you think the oral disclosure requirement will lead to frivolous litigation?

Question Title

* 23.  Do you think the disclosures, as proposed, could result in harm to a consumer?

Question Title

* 24.  Do you currently collect late-stage debt, i.e., accounts within one year of their applicable SOL?

Question Title

* 25.  If the proposed rule were to pass, would you continue to collect late-stage debt?

0 of 44 answered
 

T