As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, “collection agency” means any person, partnership, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or firm which engages in the collection of delinquent accounts, bills, or other forms of indebtedness owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another or any person, partnership, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or firm using a fictitious name or any name other than its own in the collection of their own accounts receivable, or any person, partnership, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or firm which solicits claims for collection or any person, partnership, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or firm that purchases and attempts to collect delinquent accounts or bills.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment rewrote the section.
Case Notes
Construction.
Plain language of this section does not include any modifying language and would thus include both direct and indirect attempts to collect delinquent accounts or bills.
Simpson v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, 2014 Ark. 363, 440 S.W.3d 335 (2014).
Collection Agency.
On a certified question posed by a federal district court, an entity that purchased delinquent accounts and then retained a licensed Arkansas lawyer to collect on the delinquent accounts and file lawsuits on its behalf in Arkansas was attempting to collect, thus meeting the definition of collection agency under this section.
Simpson v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, 2014 Ark. 363, 440 S.W.3d 335 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2022 · leading case: Simpson v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, 2014 Ark. 363 (Ark. 2014).
Simpson v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, 2014 Ark. 363 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 21דOn October 29, 2013, Cavalry moved for summary judgment asserting that Ark.Code Ann. § 17-24-101 et seq. does not require it to be licensed because it does not attempt to collect delinquent accounts or bills inasmuch as it hired a licensed Arkansas lawyer to collect on…”
Born v. Hosto & Buchan, PLLC, 372 S.W.3d 324 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 2דFurthermore, as discussed in the Wingo Act violations context, the appellants have made no argument regarding how any violation of Arkansas’s state-license requirements might violate the FDCPA.”
Scroggin v. Credit Bureau of Jonesboro, Inc., 973 F. Supp. 2d 961 (E.D. Ark. 2013). · cites it 2דScroggin also brought claims under the Arkansas Collection Agency Act, Ark.Code Ann. § 17-24-101 et seq., and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark.”
Cach, LLC v. Echols, 2016 Ark. 446 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 3ד3d 335 , 1 Echols alleged that CACH is a collection agency as defined in Arkansas Code Annotated sections 17-24-101 and 17-24-301, that it had not obtained the required license from the Arkansas State Board of Collection Agencies (ASBCA), and that it had therefore violated the…”
Mizan Rahman v. Bf Acquisitions, LLC, Assignee of Regions Bank Woodland Farm Estates, LLC & David Carl, 2022 Ark. App. 465 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4ד2005) because it was not issued jointly to all defendants; that the circuit court erred in finding that the writ of execution did not violate Rahman’s due-process rights; and that the circuit court erred in ruling that BF was not required to be a licensed debt-collection agency…”
McMahan v. Sentry ADR Servs., LLC (W.D. Ark. 2021). · cites it 2ד§ 17-24-506(b)(5) provides that a violation occurs when a debt collector issues a “threat to take an action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.”
Alexander v. Absolute Resolutions Corp. (W.D. Ark. 2019). “§ 17-24-101 (emphasis added). thousand dollars ($10,000) in order to be considered retroactively licensed under this chapter by the board.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.