Keith Richardson, a licensed attorney, formed Debt Recovery, Inc., which bought more than 2.2 million uncollectible checks

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Keith Richardson, a licensed attorney, formed Debt Recovery, Inc., which bought more than 2.2 million uncollectible checks with an estimated value of about $348 million, for pennies on the dollar. Keith’s purchase allowed creditors who had been unable to collect to recover some of the debt owed and not suffer a total loss. This also made Debt Recovery the new creditor on those checks and the company aggressively pursued the debtors. Richardson trained Debt Recovery’s employees to falsely accuse the debtors of being criminals and to threaten them with arrest and prosecution. The employees contacted the debtors’ family members and used "saturation phoning"—phoning a debtor numerous times in a short period. They used abusive language, referring to drawers as "deadbeats," "thieves," and "idiots." In approximately two years, Debt Recovery netted more than $10.2 million from its efforts. The Federal Trade Commission filed a suit in a federal district court against Debt Recovery and Richardson, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Practices Act (FDCPA). Was Debt Recovery a "debt collector," collecting "debts," within the meaning of the FDCPA, and were its actions legal?

1. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act attempts to prevent abuses by (Select A.creditors B.collection agencies C.government employees).

2. Specialized (Select A.debt-collection agencies B.creditors) and (Select A.attorneys B.bankers) who regularly attempt to collect debts on behalf of someone else are considered debt collectors under the FDCPA.

3. Creditors (Select A.are B.are not ) covered by the act unless they cause debtors to believe they are collection agencies.

4. Richardson (Select A. was B. was not) an attorney.

5. Debt Recovery (Select A. was B. was not) set up as a debt-collection agency.

6. Debt Recovery (Select A. was B. was not) covered by the FDCPA.

7. If Debt Recovery was covered by the FDCPA, it could not legally contact the debtor at the debtor's place of employment if the (Select A.debtor B.debtor's employer) objects.

8. Debt Recovery (Select A. did B.did not) do this activity.

9. If Debt Recovery was covered by the FDCPA, it could not legally contact the debtor at (Select A.inconvenient B.busy) or unusual times.

10. Debt Recovery (Select A.did B.did not) do this activity.

11. If Debt Recovery was covered by the FDCPA, it could not legally contact the debtor (Select A. spouse B. family C.neighbor) about the payment of a debt without court authorization.

12. Debt Recovery (Select A. did B. did not) do this activity.

13. If Debt Recovery was covered by the FDCPA, it could not legally (Select A. harass B. contact)or intimidate the debtor using (Select A.abusive B.legalistic) language or (Selec A. threat B. telephones).

14. Debt Recovery (Select A. did B.did not) do this activity.

15. Because of its behavior, Debt Recovery likely (Select A.did B. did not) Item 1 violate the FDCPA.