Consumer law often develops through a sequence of cases rather than a single decision. The matters below show how recurring issues in debt collection, landlord-tenant litigation, and foreclosure moved from trial courts to reported appellate decisions and, in some instances, legislative reform.

Debt-Buyer Licensing: Hauk, Bradshaw, Finch

Hauk v. LVNV Funding

The early federal class litigation challenged LVNV’s use of Maryland courts to collect defaulted consumer debt without the collection-agency license required by Maryland law. The court allowed core federal and Maryland consumer-protection theories to proceed.

Bradshaw v. Hilco Receivables

The District of Maryland later held that a debt buyer filing collection actions in Maryland was required to be licensed and that unlicensed collection activity could violate the FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA. The Court later granted summary judgment for the class on the defendant’s liability.

LVNV Funding v. Finch

The issue then reached Maryland’s appellate courts. The Court of Special Appeals initially held that judgments obtained by an unlicensed collection agency were void and subject to collateral attack. The Supreme Court of Maryland later held that the judgments were not void for lack of fundamental jurisdiction, but were uneforceable preserving a private consumer remedy for unlawful unlicensed collection activity.

Access to Court: Cain v. Midland Funding

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that a debt buyer that chose to sue a consumer in court and obtain a judgment waived its contractual right to compel arbitration of related consumer claims arising from that collection litigation.

Residential Collection: Smith, Simmons, Williams

Smith v. Wakefield

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that residential back-rent claims are governed by a three-year limitations period despite lease language purporting to extend the period to twelve years.

Simmons v. Maryland Management

Simmons built on Smith and held that tenants could pursue consumer-protection claims based on attempts to collect time-barred rent, including questions of actual knowledge or reckless disregard under the MCDCA. The Court held that injunctive and declaratory could be granted under the Maryland Consumer Protection laws.

Williams v. eWrit Filings

The Court of Special Appeals held that an entity filing failure-to-pay-rent actions on behalf of another was engaged in debt collection activity and was required to hold a Maryland collection-agency license.

Current Work

Current litigation continues the Smith, Simmons, and Williams line of cases by examining the application of Maryland collection-agency law to property managers that collect consumer debts for property owners.

Foreclosure Reform: Poku, Griffin, Parsons

Richard Atta Poku Litigation

Scott Borison represented Mr. Atta Poku in lawsuits including an appeal. The litigation exposed the practical effect of supersedeas-bond requirements on appellate review and was followed by proposed legislation titled the Richard Atta Poku Foreclosure Defense Act.

Griffin v. Bierman

The Supreme Court of Maryland considered constitutional notice requirements before a person’s home may be taken during the 2008 foreclosure crisis. The opinion itself noted that substantial foreclosure-reform proposals were then before the General Assembly and Executive Branch.

Parsons

Later PHIFA litigation demonstrates the enforcement side of Maryland’s foreclosure protections, including a judgment exceeding $1 million in foreclosure-rescue litigation.

A Continuing Body of Work

The common thread is the legal boundary around collection activity: who may collect, under what authority, within what limitations period, through what procedures, and subject to what consumer remedies. Some cases produced appellate precedent; others informed legislative debate; later cases built on principles established earlier.