Deloris Kojetin v. C U Recovery, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation

212 F.3d 1318, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 10944, 2000 WL 636248
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 18, 2000
Docket99-3151
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 212 F.3d 1318 (Deloris Kojetin v. C U Recovery, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deloris Kojetin v. C U Recovery, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, 212 F.3d 1318, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 10944, 2000 WL 636248 (8th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

C U Recovery, Inc. (CUR) appeals the district court’s adverse judgment in Deloris Kojetin’s action to recover damages for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). After Kojetin signed a promissory note from a credit union for her son’s car loan, the credit union referred the note to CUR for recovery after the loan went into default. Kojetin brought this action against CUR because its validation notice misrepresented the amount of the debt after CUR added fifteen percent of the principal balance to Kojetin’s obligation. The district court concluded that CUR’s notice violated the Act by adding the collection fee based on a percentage rather than on actual costs when Kojetin’s agreement with the credit union provided she was liable only for actual costs. Having considered the record, the parties’ submissions, and the relevant Minnesota law, see Campbell v. Wor-man, 58 Minn. 561, 60 N.W. 668 (1894), we are satisfied the district court committed no error of law and judgment was correctly granted for the reasons stated in the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Contrary to CUR’s view, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that CUR violated the FDCPA when it charged Ko-jetin a collection fee based on a percentage of the principal balance that remained due rather than the actual cost of the collection. We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Joseph Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC
930 F.3d 891 (Seventh Circuit, 2019)
Bryione Moore v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.
693 F. App'x 205 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)
Amber Ben-Davies v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.
695 F. App'x 674 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)
Annunziato v. Collecto, Inc.
207 F. Supp. 3d 249 (E.D. New York, 2016)
Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC
318 F.R.D. 64 (N.D. Illinois, 2016)
Nedzad Miljkovic v. Shafritz and Dinkin, P.A.
791 F.3d 1291 (Eleventh Circuit, 2015)
Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA
783 F.3d 168 (Third Circuit, 2015)
Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP
678 F.3d 1211 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
Mund v. EMCC, Inc.
259 F.R.D. 180 (D. Minnesota, 2009)
Gathuru v. Credit Control Services, Inc.
623 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D. Massachusetts, 2009)
Richard v. Oak Tree Group, Inc.
614 F. Supp. 2d 814 (W.D. Michigan, 2008)
Munoz v. PIPESTONE FINANCIAL, LLC
513 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (D. Minnesota, 2007)
Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin
Sixth Circuit, 2006

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 F.3d 1318, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 10944, 2000 WL 636248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deloris-kojetin-v-c-u-recovery-inc-a-minnesota-corporation-ca8-2000.