Mortgage Servicing and Loan Modifications: RHODE ISLAND
R.I. Gen. Laws § 19-9-9
Requirements: Owner or servicer of loan must provide payoff within three business days of written or telefaxed request.
R.I. Gen. Laws § 19-9-9
Requirements: Owner or servicer of loan must provide payoff within three business days of written or telefaxed request.
Requirements: None.
Requirements: None.
Requirements: None.
Requirements: None.
Requirements: None.
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 27, § 464
Requirements: Payoff statement to be mailed or delivered within five days of request; holder or any authorized servicer’s liability in civil action for noncompliance: $25 per day up to $5000, consequential and punitive damages, costs, and attorney fees. See also tit. 8, § 2232a(c).
Va. Code Ann. § 6.2-418
Requirements: The holder shall mail or deliver written statement of the amount to the property owner or property owner’s designee within ten business days of the receipt of a written request from such party or party’s designee.
Requirements: None.
W. Va. Code § 31-17-9(d)
Requirements: Holder shall provide without charge to the borrower within three business days after receipt of the borrower’s written request, a payoff statement in manner requested by borrower.
The oldest legal approach to debt collection abuse is an action in tort. There are distinct advantages and disadvantages to a tort approach to remedying abusive debt collection conduct. One major advantage in most states is the availability of punitive or exemplary damages for tortious conduct that is malicious or reckless.1 Another major advantage is that tort claims are available against creditors and their agents who may not be subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or some states’ consumer protection statutes.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act contains broad non-preemption language, stating that the Act does not “annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with the laws of any state with respect to debt collection, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.”13 This language makes it clear that the FDCPA is intended only to set minimum standards; states are free to provide greater protec
Emotional distress damages may also be available for other debt-related causes of action.162 Courts are more likely to find emotional distress damages available if the cause of action sounds in tort rather than in contract163 and if the defendant’s actions were intentional.164 The standard of proof to recover emotional distress damages for other torts may be less stringent than for a claim of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distres
The tort known as intrusion upon the right to seclusion occurs in the debt collection context under the following circumstances:
The essence of the tort of placing a person in a false light is the false attribution to the debtor of an undesirable or negative character.207 This tort is recognized in most jurisdictions,208 but there are some exceptions.209 While similar to defamation,210 false light claims may avoid several requirements of defamation actions, such as pleading special damages.
The tort of invasion of privacy involving public disclosure of true but private facts may apply to a disclosure by a debt collector if the disclosure meets the following criteria:
Two closely related torts that may occur in the debt collection context are tortious interference with a contract and tortious interference with prospective economic relations. Because the law is protective of existing contracts, the former cause of action is better developed and easier to prove.
A claim of tortious interference with a contract may arise in the debt collection context where a creditor prevents a debtor from benefiting from a contract with a third party.246 For example, the collector’s contacts with the debtor’s employer may cause the debtor to lose a job. As another example, a mortgage lender or servicer may commit this tort if it interferes with a property owner’s contract with a tenant.247
The elements of tortious interference with prospective economic relations have been stated as: (1) a reasonable expectation of entering into a relationship; (2) defendant’s knowledge of that expectancy; (3) intentional265 and unjustified interference by defendant that caused a termination of that expectancy; and (4) damage to plaintiff as a result of defendant’s conduct.266 A claim may arise if the creditor’s or collector’s wrongful acts interfere with the consumer’s ability to obtain other cred
Justification is a defense to a claim of tortious interference with a contract or with prospective economic relations.
Professor Dodds classifies defamation as a dignitary tort, one that “involve[s] legally cognizable invasions of rights that stand independent of both physical and economic harms, that is, invasions of human dignity in the sense of human worth.”283 In its traditional form, proof of damages was not an element of the tort:
In jurisdictions that distinguish between defamation per se and defamation per quod, an important issue is whether a false statement that a person has failed to pay a debt is defamation per se. If it is not, then the statement will be actionable only if it has caused “special”—that is, pecuniary—damages.
The falsity of the statement is an element of a defamation claim, and truth is often called an absolute defense.301 This defense requires proof of more than the validity of the debt or the literal truth of the statement.
In most jurisdictions, malice is an element of the tort of defamation only if the plaintiff is a public figure or the defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern.308 By virtue of a qualified immunity provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), however, a plaintiff must plead and prove malice or a willful intent to injure in a defamation claim against a credit reporting agency or against a user of or contributor to a consumer credit report.309 This immunity applies where the
Some jurisdictions require allegations of defamation to be pleaded with specificity.321 Whether a statement is defamatory per se is often treated as a question of law, while it is a question of fact whether a statement is defamatory in light of extrinsic facts.322 Some courts, however, state more generally that it is always a question of law whether a statement is capable of a defamatory meaning.323 Yet other courts state that it is a ques