No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect any debt by use of any unconscionable means. Such means include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Seeking or obtaining any written statement or acknowledgment in any form containing an affirmation of any debt by a consumer who has been declared bankrupt, an acknowledgment of any debt barred by the statute of limitations, or a waiver of any legal rights of the debtor without disclosing the nature and consequences of such affirmation or waiver and the fact that the consumer is not legally obligated to make such affirmation or waiver.
(2) Collecting or attempting to collect from the consumer all or any part of the debt collector's fee or charge for services rendered, collecting or attempting to collect any interest or other charge, fee or expense incidental to the principal debt unless legally entitled to such fee or charge. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the collection of filing fees, service of process fees, or other court costs actually incurred. The collection of such fees is not a violation of this Article or of Article 15 of Chapter 53 of the General Statutes.
(3) Communicating with a consumer (other than a statement of account used in the normal course of business) whenever the debt collector has been notified by the consumer's attorney that he represents said consumer.
(4) Bringing suit against the debtor in a county other than that in which the debt was incurred or in which the debtor resides if the distances and amounts involved would make it impractical for the debtor to defend the claim. (1977, c. 747, s. 4; 2015-177, s. 4.)
Notes of Decisions
Crabtree v. Smith, 797 S.E.2d 710 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 12× “In support of these allegations, plaintiffs' complaint pled that: BAC and BANA's acts or omissions as stated in this Count constitute an unconscionable means of collecting a debt in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55 in that BANA has attempted to collect late payments and…”
Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 73 F. Supp. 3d 644 (E.D.N.C. 2014).
· cites it 4× “See FAC ¶ 20(c); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-55(2). The FAC, however, states that defendants reversed all fees once defendants completed their account investigation.”
Friday v. United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc., 575 S.E.2d 532 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55 (2) (2001). The trial court found that, “The false representations by letters of Defendant to Plaintiff violate GS 75-55(2), as attempts to collect a debt by unconscionable means.”
In Re Peterson, 297 B.R. 467 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 1692k, and no violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-55(3) or § 58-70-115(3).”
4U Homes & Sales, Inc. v. McCoy, 762 S.E.2d 308 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “00 penalty for each of Plaintiff’s violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55 and claims that “numerous” such violations occurred, it is clear from that portion of Defendant’s counterclaims, without considering her additional claims…”
Green Tree Servicing LLC v. Locklear, 763 S.E.2d 523 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “§ 75-54 (6); and communicating with any consumer by means other than the transmission of an account statement after having been notified that the consumer is represented by counsel, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55 (3). However, “before a claim for unfair debt collection can be…”
In re Highsmith, 542 B.R. 738 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 1692 (a)(2), the “North Carolina Deceptive Practices Law,” N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 75-55(3) and 58-70-115(3).”
Simmons v. Kross Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 746 S.E.2d 311 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “We note Defendant’s contention that this communication was a permissible form of contact under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55 (3) (2011), a provision of the NCDCA which authorizes a creditor to communicate with a consumer - even after receiving notice that the consumer is represented…”
Tetterton v. Ocwen Fed. Bank (In Re Tetterton), 379 B.R. 595 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2007).
· cites it 4× “First, she asserts that the release language is unconscionable under N.C. GenStat. § 75-55 because it does not expressly disclose the nature and consequences of the waivers.”
Onnipauper LLC v. Dunston (N.C. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 17× “Specifically, the trial court found “Plaintiff violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55 (2) twenty-nine (29) times by attempting to collect and collecting a fee for the provision of water that [it was] not legally entitled to collect.”
Suarez v. Camden Prop. Trust (E.D.N.C. 2019).
· cites it 8× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55 (1)(4). Although section 75- 55’s list is not exhaustive, Suarez’s allegations merely repackage defendants’ allegedly deceptive conduct.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55(1) — 2 cases
Tetterton v. Ocwen Fed. Bank (In Re Tetterton), 379 B.R. 595 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2007).
“First, she asserts that the release language is unconscionable under N.C. GenStat. § 75-55 because it does not expressly disclose the nature and consequences of the waivers.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55(2) — 11 cases
Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 73 F. Supp. 3d 644 (E.D.N.C. 2014).
“See FAC ¶ 20(c); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-55(2). The FAC, however, states that defendants reversed all fees once defendants completed their account investigation.”
Friday v. United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc., 575 S.E.2d 532 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
“N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55 (2) (2001). The trial court found that, “The false representations by letters of Defendant to Plaintiff violate GS 75-55(2), as attempts to collect a debt by unconscionable means.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-55(3) — 3 cases
In Re Peterson, 297 B.R. 467 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2003).
“§ 1692k, and no violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-55(3) or § 58-70-115(3).”
In re Highsmith, 542 B.R. 738 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2015).
“§ 1692 (a)(2), the “North Carolina Deceptive Practices Law,” N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 75-55(3) and 58-70-115(3).”
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.