No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect any debt alleged to be due and owing from a consumer by means of any unfair threat, coercion, or attempt to coerce. Such unfair acts include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Using or threatening to use violence or any illegal means to cause harm to the person, reputation or property of any person.
(2) Falsely accusing or threatening to accuse any person of fraud or any crime, or of any conduct that would tend to cause disgrace, contempt or ridicule.
(3) Making or threatening to make false accusations to another person, including any credit reporting agency, that a consumer has not paid, or has willfully refused to pay a just debt.
(4) Threatening to sell or assign, or to refer to another for collection, the debt of the consumer with an attending representation that the result of such sale, assignment or reference would be that the consumer would lose any defense to the debt or would be subjected to harsh, vindictive, or abusive collection attempts.
(5) Representing that nonpayment of an alleged debt may result in the arrest of any person.
(6) Representing that nonpayment of an alleged debt may result in the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages unless such action is in fact contemplated by the debt collector and permitted by law.
(7) Threatening to take any action not in fact taken in the usual course of business, unless it can be shown that such threatened action was actually intended to be taken in the particular case in which the threat was made.
(8) Threatening to take any action not permitted by law. (1977, c. 747, s. 4.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
DirecTV, Inc. v. Cephas, 294 F. Supp. 2d 760 (M.D.N.C. 2003).
DirecTV, Inc. v. Cephas, 294 F. Supp. 2d 760 (M.D.N.C. 2003).
· cites it 8× “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-51. To state a claim under this act, a claimant must establish three elements: (1) the alleged obligation is a “debt,” (2) the claimant owing the obligation is a “consumer,” and (3) the party attempting to collect the obligation is a “debt collector.”
Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NA, 452 S.E.2d 233 (N.C. 1994).
· cites it 3× “” *345 The complaint sought recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and violations of N.C.G.S. §§ 75-51 and 75-56, relating to threatening or coercive debt collection practices.”
Oteria Moses v. Cashcall, Inc., 781 F.3d 63 (4th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “In her second claim, she sought damages for CashCall’s alleged violation of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-51 , 75-54, asserting that CashCall sought to enforce a debt that was void under North Carolina law.”
Reid v. Ayers, 531 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-51 to -55 (1999). But before a claim for unfair debt collection can be substantiated, three threshold determinations must be satisfied.”
Williams v. HomEq Servicing Corp., 646 S.E.2d 381 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Williams contends that in the last seven years, HomEq has violated § 75-51(1),(3),(6),(8); § 75-52(3),(4); § 75-54(4),(6); and § 75-55(2).”
Davis Lake Cmty. Ass'n v. Feldmann, 530 S.E.2d 865 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “95 obligation included attorney’s fees well in excess of the fifteen percent limit, defendants have satisfied the unfair or deceptive act requirement.”
Talbert v. Mauney, 343 S.E.2d 5 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “747; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-51 (1985). N.C. Gen.”
Spinks v. Taylor, 266 S.E.2d 857 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “G.S. 75-51 (1) prohibits the use or threat of violence of illegal means to cause harm to any person, his reputation, or his property.”
Ken-Mar Fin. v. Harvey, 368 S.E.2d 646 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).
“Thus, defendant argues plaintiff misled defendant by letting her believe that it could seize the property when actually her property was protected under G.”
Pryor v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Pryor), 479 B.R. 694 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2012).
“The state statutes at issue prohibit debt collectors from using threats, deception, harassment, or any unconscionable means to collect debts.”
Panag v. Farmers Ins., 166 Wash. 2d 27 (Wash. 2009).
“See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-51 (“No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect any debt .”
Suarez v. Camden Prop. Trust (E.D.N.C. 2019).
· cites it 7× “_ As for Suarez’s section 75-51 claim, section 75-51 forbids debt collectors from using “any unfair threat, coercion, or attempt to coerce” to collect a debt, including by “[t]hreatening to take any □ action not in fact taken in the usual course of business, unless it can be…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-51(1) — 1 case
Williams v. HomEq Servicing Corp., 646 S.E.2d 381 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
“Williams contends that in the last seven years, HomEq has violated § 75-51(1),(3),(6),(8); § 75-52(3),(4); § 75-54(4),(6); and § 75-55(2).”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-51(2) — 1 case
DirecTV, Inc. v. Cephas, 294 F. Supp. 2d 760 (M.D.N.C. 2003).
“See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-51. To state a claim under this act, a claimant must establish three elements: (1) the alleged obligation is a “debt,” (2) the claimant owing the obligation is a “consumer,” and (3) the party attempting to collect the obligation is a “debt collector.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-51(3) — 1 case
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-51(6) — 1 case
Ken-Mar Fin. v. Harvey, 368 S.E.2d 646 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).
“Thus, defendant argues plaintiff misled defendant by letting her believe that it could seize the property when actually her property was protected under G.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-51(8) — 2 cases
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.