QuestionNovember 18, 2025

In Chunwayv. Narional Action Financial Services, where Chuway received a letter from debt collector National that requested payment of the amount she owed on a debt, the appeals court held that the debt collector: violated the FDCPA by not clearly establishing the amount of the debt violated the FDCPA by sending the plaintiff multiple letters after she requested they stop did not violate the FDCPA because the language of the letter was clear clearly used safe harbor language and so did not violate the FDCPA used reasonable language for the situation and so did not violate the FDCPA

In Chunwayv. Narional Action Financial Services, where Chuway received a letter from debt collector National that requested payment of the amount she owed on a debt, the appeals court held that the debt collector: violated the FDCPA by not clearly establishing the amount of the debt violated the FDCPA by sending the plaintiff multiple letters after she requested they stop did not violate the FDCPA because the language of the letter was clear clearly used safe harbor language and so did not violate the FDCPA used reasonable language for the situation and so did not violate the FDCPA
In Chunwayv. Narional Action Financial Services, where Chuway received a letter from debt collector National that requested payment of the amount she owed on a debt, the appeals court held that the debt
collector:
violated the FDCPA by not clearly establishing the amount of the debt
violated the FDCPA by sending the plaintiff multiple letters after she requested they stop
did not violate the FDCPA because the language of the letter was clear
clearly used safe harbor language and so did not violate the FDCPA
used reasonable language for the situation and so did not violate the FDCPA

Solution
4.4(376 votes)

Answer

violated the FDCPA by not clearly establishing the amount of the debt Explanation This is a multiple-choice question about the court’s ruling in *Chuway v. National Action Financial Services*. The case centered on whether the debt collector’s letter was misleading about the amount owed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court found that the letter was *unclear* about the amount due.

Explanation

This is a multiple-choice question about the court’s ruling in *Chuway v. National Action Financial Services*. The case centered on whether the debt collector’s letter was misleading about the amount owed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court found that the letter was *unclear* about the amount due.
Click to rate:

Similar Questions