Sharolyn Charles Case Summary
In this case, yes I do believe that Sharolyn Charles should win because all of the fees and penalties that were added up by the law firm, Lundgren and Associates were not necessary. When Check Rite referred the matter over to Lundgren, Lundgren had no right to continue to add unknown charges and send these notices to Sharolyn Charles without reasoning. For example, in the text it mentions that there are consumer protection laws and that failure to disclose all of the charges related to a consumer loan or a credit purchase would be an omission that carries rights for consumers and penalties for the business. Also mentioned in the text, consumer protection status can also provide a consumer who has been harmed by a violation of the statues may recover by his own suit against the business that acted improperly. Now, Charles was not harmed in this matter but she was violated by receiving four letters by the firm demanding she pay the settlement offer.
…show more content…
When Sharolyn Charles wrote her check for $17.93 to a Poncho’s Restaurant, as payment for a meal, the service charge that was added by Check Rite was not reasonable because in the letter sent to Charles there was no explanation by Check Rite other than, “this is an attempt to collect debt” but it did not mention if Charles had an invalid check or not.
If it was not then there is no reason to collect debt simply because Charles used a check at restaurant. There was also no reason for Check Rite to refer this matter over to the law firm because they were not the company that the check was forwarded to in the first
place.
Yes, Charles is protected by the FDCPA because this prohibits improper practices in the collection by third parties of debts incurred mainly for personal, family, or household purposes. Also mentioned in the text it says that, collectors are defined to include attorneys’ who are collecting for clients as well as those who are collecting from consumers for bad checks but does not cover original creditors who are collecting from their original debtors. With Charles, Check Rite tried to collect a debt for a personal purpose of Charles which was going out to eat. Having said that, there was no mention that Charles used a bad check therefor she is protected and can appeal in this situation.
When Sharolyn Charles wrote her check for $17.93 to a Poncho’s Restaurant, as payment for a meal, the service charge that was added by Check Rite was not reasonable because in the letter sent to Charles there was no explanation by Check Rite other than, “this is an attempt to collect debt” but it did not mention if Charles had an invalid check or not.
If it was not then there is no reason to collect debt simply because Charles used a check at restaurant. There was also no reason for Check Rite to refer this matter over to the law firm because they were not the company that the check was forwarded to in the first
place.
Yes, Charles is protected by the FDCPA because this prohibits improper practices in the collection by third parties of debts incurred mainly for personal, family, or household purposes. Also mentioned in the text it says that, collectors are defined to include attorneys’ who are collecting for clients as well as those who are collecting from consumers for bad checks but does not cover original creditors who are collecting from their original debtors. With Charles, Check Rite tried to collect a debt for a personal purpose of Charles which was going out to eat. Having said that, there was no mention that Charles used a bad check therefor she is protected and can appeal in this situation.