Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Shipp v. Messerli and Kramer Professional Association
No. 05-94 (D. Minn. filed March 25, 2005), removed from No. C7-04-12204 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Ramsey County filed December 21, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55828
Description
Debtors Challenge Law Firm’s Request for Excessive Fee Awards in Default Collection Cases
Abstract
Plaintiff Minnesota residents sued by creditors in state courts
challenge defendant law firm’s practice of seeking excessive
and unearned attorney fee awards in default judgment cases in which
it represented creditors. In each collection case against
plaintiffs, plaintiffs defaulted, creditors were awarded default
judgments, and defendant obtained judgments against plaintiffs for
attorney fees. A state court rule permits counsel for a creditor,
once a debtor is in default, to obtain approval of a fee request
administratively without a motion hearing if the fee does not
exceed 15 percent of the principal balance owing as requested in
the party’s pleadings, up to a maximum of $3,000; a
defaulting party may request a hearing to challenge the fee
request. In a class action complaint, plaintiffs claim that
defendant’s cover letter to debtors misleads debtors about
who may use the enclosed hearing request form and about the
possible consequences of the hearings, thereby discouraging debtors
from exercising their right to request a hearing. Plaintiffs
challenge defendant’s boilerplate affidavits that base its
fee requests on the average time that defendant claims to have
expended on other collection cases rather than time actually spent
on the case at issue. They also challenge defendant’s regular
requests for fee awards based on anticipated future work to be
performed. Alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and Minnesota’s Rules of Practice and Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, equitable relief or actual damages, and costs
and attorney fees.
