Levi Huebner v. Midland Credit Management, et al.

i QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(8), 1692g(a)(3), is a debt collector required to treat a consumer’s oral dispute with the same validity as one made in writing as held by the First, Second (pre-Huebner), Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits, together with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB); or treat the dispute with less validity as held by the Third Circuit for not being in writing; further is the collector precluded from requiring the consumer disputing a debt to disclose why there is a dispute, as held by the First, Second (pre-Huebner), Fifth, and Seventh Circuits, together with the CFPB; or as the Second Circuit (post-Huebner), which held the collector can treat the dispute with less validity for failing to disclose “why” there is a dispute; or as the First, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits held that the statutory protection of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) “knows or should know” standard requires no notification by the consumer, written or oral, and instead, depends solely on the debt collector's knowledge that a debt is disputed?

2. Does the evaluation of the least sophisticated consumer rest upon a question of fact as held by the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits together with the States of New York, Maryland, and California; or a question of law as held by the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits together with the State of Oklahoma?