Return to site


· ARM Industry,Debt Sales,CHARGE-OFF DEBT,FDCPA,Debt Collection


In the lawsuit of McAdams and Rousso versus Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC, the industry of management of receivable accounts had won. According to the court, Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC, acted following the FDCPA (Fair debt collection practices act) when it sent letters of collection saying “Current balance due” and it did not mean that the change of balance will not happen. In this case, the ACA supported its member Stoneleigh Recovery Associates in order to restrain the outbreak of funny actions of the class or consumer suits against the management industry that can receive accounts in the federal court. This is also done to reduce the consumer bar’s capacity to blame the FDCPA for initiating huge claims against the collectors of debt who are not so harmful to the consumers.

In McAdams and Rousso case, the agency issued some letters of initiation for the consumers that were identical except for the account information specifically. Along with other necessary information, it also contained the statement saying “Current Balance Due” and reflected the amount owed by every consumer. The letters also showed the itemization following a law of New York State. It showed all the charges to be null.

At this moment, the consumers charged the collection agency about the statement “Current Balance Due” saying that it violated FDCPA and thus filed a lawsuit. According to them, the word ‘current’ accompanied by ‘balance’ would mean an interest or some other fees. They quarreled that the letters failed to convey the exact debt amounts and that the term “current balance” was not correct as the consumer may not understand if it is dynamic or static.

The District Court of U.S. for New York’s Eastern District did not approve the consumers’ arguments following the decision in the case of Taylor versus Financial Recovery Services, Inc. According to this case, the District Court said that the letters issued for collection had not violated rule as they stated the exact static debt amount.

As in these cases, the New York State and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau came together to work for a change in the law where the letters for the collection of debt did not provide safe language, attorneys of the consumer filed numerous lawsuits against the members of ACA. The win in the McAdams and Rousso case has helped the members of ACA get an edge for its members.

A lot of information about the recent developments regarding this can be found on the website, It is free to browse.

All Posts

Almost done…

We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!