In his national practice dedicated to the financial services industry, John has shaped the law in numerous landmark cases that preserved and expanded the rights of financial services companies, including national banks, automobile lenders, fintech companies, collection agencies, debt buyers, mortgage lenders, creditors, and fellow lawyers.

Licensed to practice in 15 courts and jurisdictions across the country, John regularly serves as counsel nationwide, both as a lead lawyer and as a learned strategist for local counsel. He advises and counsels financial services industry clients on regulatory compliance, defends them in claims and litigation, and advises them on best practices to prevent legal action.

John also helps creditors navigate the Bankruptcy Code and courts and represents them to secure payments and collateral, make determinations for future services, and minimize preference liability.

National Authority on Debt Collection and Regulatory Compliance

John is a prominent commentator and thought leader on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and state regulatory laws.

In his counsel to many of the nation’s leading financial services companies, John works collaboratively with clients on developing an efficient and cohesive national legal strategy. He offers proprietary knowledge of proven litigation tactics and opposing counsels’ strategies, a competitive advantage he has built during his more than two decades of counsel in the collection and debt industry.

John is on the steering committee of the Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC), a national organization of larger market participant creditors and financial services companies formed by industry executives who believe that a reasonable and knowledgeable voice is needed to address both issues and solutions. In his role with the CRC, John meets quarterly in Washington, D.C. with key federal regulators and consumer groups to effect positive change for all parties.

John offers analysis and insights to credit collection groups, including DBA International and ACA International, and speaks at annual conferences, retreats, and programs.

The Debt Collection Drill

John founded and co-hosts The Debt Collection Drill, a podcast and related blog (distributed by insideARM.com) that provides ongoing intelligence for financial services professionals seeking detailed tactics on emerging issues in the credit industry. John discusses many of the same challenges and solutions he typically addresses and manages for clients, including:

  • Strategies for avoiding TCPA lawsuits
  • Preventing and defeating FDCPA claims
  • Seeking sanctions in FDCPA cases
  • Costly mistakes debt collectors should avoid
  • Debt collectors’ strategies for interacting with consumer lawyers
  • Effective collection agency crisis responses

Regulatory and Compliance

Because many regulations governing the debt industry have room for interpretation, maintaining a working relationship with the regulators who routinely interpret these regulations is a vital key to success.

John fosters robust relationships with numerous state and federal regulators. He meets frequently with federal regulators in Washington, D.C. and communicates with state collection agency regulators, who frequently seek the firm’s informal input on issues. Moss & Barnett clients benefit from John’s relationships with the regulators who enforce laws that are often open to broad and varying interpretations.

Litigation Defense

John represents debt collectors, debt buyers, creditors, and lawyers in lawsuits brought pursuant to the TCPA, FDCPA, the FCRA, and similar state statutes.
His financial services industry defense includes:

  • Telephone Consumer Protection Act
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act Defense
  • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Defense
  • State and jurisdictional licensing requirements

John encourages his clients to be actively involved in crafting their case’s litigation strategy, which consistently leads to successful outcomes.

Reported Decisions

  • Roark v. Credit One Bank, 2018 WL 5921652 (D. Minn., 2018)
  • Remington v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2017 WL 1014994 (D. CT)
  • Bradford v. LVNV Funding, 3 F. Supp. 3d 708 (6th Cir. 2015)
  • Donaldson v. LVNV Funding, 2015 WL 1539607 (S.D. Ind. 2015)
  • Bradford v. LVNV, Docket 2:11-CV-291 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 25, 2014)
  • White v. Sherman, 2013 WL 5936679 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 4, 2013)
  • Robinson v. Sherman,2013 WL 3968446 (E.D. Tenn., July 31, 2013)
  • Ferris & Salter v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, 2012 WL 3815624 (D. Minn.)
  • Dumoulin v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 11-149 (Idaho Supreme Court)
  • Zigdon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2010 WL 1838637 (N.D. Ohio 2010) and 2010 WL 2332692 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
  • Brill v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 5825480 (D. Neb. 2010)
  • Lougee v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 2077178 (D. Colo. 2010)
  • Mack Financial Services v. Tim Flanigan Trucking, Inc., 2010 WL 234729 (D. Minn. 2010)
  • Jiminez v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 2010 WL 5829206 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
  • Waite v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 5209350 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
  • Vinton v. Certegy Check Services, 1:08-cv-881 (W.D. Mich. 2009)
  • Hollis v. Northland Group, Inc., 2009 WL 250075 (D. Minn. 2009)
  • Grim v. West Publishing Corp., 08-1264 (Berks County, PA 2008)
  • Hernandez v. Palisades, 3:06-CV-1382 (D. Conn. 2008)
  • Cerjaweski v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2008 WL 3091318 (N.D. Ind. 2008)
  • Stampley v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 583 F. Supp. 2d 960 (N.D. Ohio 2008)
  • Sivak v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 3:06-CV-01400 (D. Conn. 2007)
  • Posso v. Asta Funding, Inc., 07-C-4024 (N.D. Ill. 2007)
  • Galbraith v. Resurgent Capital Services, 2006 WL 2990163 (E.D. Cal. 2006)
  • Jackson v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 1:05-cv-023 (D. N.D. 2006) 
  • Perera v. Blue Ribbon et. al., CV-04-1668 (D. Oregon 2005) 
  • Malm v. Household Bank, 2004 WL 1559370 (D. Minn. 2004)
  • Richardson v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, 2004 WL 867732 (S.D. N.Y. 2004) 
  • Wiegand v. JNR Adjustment Co., 2002 WL 724456 (D. Minn. 2002)
  • Alexander v. Omega Management, 67 F. Supp. 2d. 1052 (D. Minn. 1999) 

Credentials

Education

William Mitchell College of Law, J.D.; cum laude

Marquette University, B.A., Journalism

Admissions

  • Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
  • U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

News & Insights

News

Speaking Engagements

  • ACA International Deep Dive Webinar Series, 06.13.2019
  • HOT TOPIC: Interest Disclosure in Your Collection Letters
    ACA International Teleseminar, 10.11.2018
  • Receivables Management Assoc. 21st Annual Conference, Aria Resort & Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada, 02.07.2018
  • How Your Regulatory Exams Can Provide More Opportunities for the Regulator, the Examined Agency and the Consumer
    North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association (NACARA) 2017 Annual Conference & Training Event, Embassy Suites-Bellevue, Bellevue, Washington, 10.03.2017
  • Receivables Management Assoc. (RMA) 2017 Executive Summit, Resort at Squaw Creek, Lake Tahoe, California, 08.03.2017
  • It's a Trap! New FDCPA and State Law Pitfalls for First Party that Will Surprise You
    The First Party Summit – A New Kind of Conference – The industry's first-ever and only Summit focused totally on the unique challenges of First Party Collections, Outsourcing, and Customer Care, Presented by insideARM, The Westin Stonebriar Hotel & Golf , 06.06.2017
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Connections
    20th Annual DBA International Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 02.09.2017
  • Surprise! You May Need a State License for Medical Billing and Early Out
    Second Annual insideARM First Party Summit, Chicago, IL, 10.17.2016
  • Navigating Regulatory Uncertainty: TCPA, FCRA, FDCPA Developments
    Minnesota CLE Conference Center, Minneapolis, MN, 10.10.2016
  • CFPB Proposed Rulemaking Insight and Q&A
    Webinar, 08.16.2016
  • Three Things Everyone Needs to Know About Debt Collection
    National Association of Consumer Credit Administrators/American Financial Services Association 18th Annual State Government Affairs & Legal Issues Forum, Radisson Blu Hotel, Minneapolis, MN, 06.16.2016
  • ReadyTalk Audio & Web Conferencing Webinar, 06.07.2016
  • Free Webinar on Eventbrite, 02.09.2016
  • Statute of Limitations and Consumer Debt
    American Financial Services Association, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 01.26.2016
  • insideARM Webinar, 11.19.2015
  • Hennepin County Bar Association – Debtor/Creditor Section, 11.18.2015
  • First Party Outsourcing Event Summit, an iA Institute event, Oakridge Hotel & Conference Center, Chaska, MN, 10.13.2015
  • DBA International 2015 Executive Summit, Montage Deer Valley, Park City, UT, 08.13.2015
  • insideARM.com Webinar, 07.29.2015
  • Best Practices in Validation Notices
    insideOperations Webinar, 07.16.2015
  • Attorney Panel – Legal Trends in Debt Collection
    Spring 2015 Joint Conference – Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, Eau Claire, WI, 05.20.2015
  • Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Panel Discussion
    Minnesota State Bar Association, 03.26.2015
  • The Debt Collection Drill Live!
    18th Annual DBA International Conference, Aria Resort & Casino, Las Vegas, NV, 02.05.2015
  • insideOperations Webinar, 09.24.2014
  • insideCompliance Live Webinar, 09.16.2014
  • Top Litigation Risks for Debt Buyers and How to Avoid Them
    DBA International 2014 Executive Summit, 06.26.2014
  • insideOperations Webinar, 05.28.2014
  • 17th Annual DBA International Conference, Aria Resort & Casino, Las Vegas, 02.05.2014
  • 2014 Large Market Participant Summit Hosted by insideARM.com, Washington, D.C., 01.23.2014

Multimedia

Social Media

Moss & Barnett, John Rossman, and Mike Poncin are pleased to present the audio blog series, The Debt Collection Drill. John and Mike provide sage tips and ongoing intelligence for debt professionals. In the blog archive, you can review detailed tactics on emerging issues in the credit industry and their analysis and solutions to the challenges the collection industry faces daily. John and Mike invite your readership and comments.

The Debt Collection Drill

Moss & Barnett is pleased to announce the first of its monthly podcast series titled "The Debt Collection Drill" featuring shareholders John Rossman and Michael Poncin providing sage tips for improving collections and compliance.
  • The CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules envision a much-needed update and modernization to many provisions in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  However, the CFPB’s proposed rules include a limit of the number of debt collection calls that may be made per week without regard to the REJECTION of call frequency limits by Congress.  Because our Congress considered and dismissed call frequency limits for debt collectors, the CFPB cannot implement such limits through rulemaking. In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, attorneys Mike Poncin and John Rossman re-enact (from official Congressional transcripts) portions of the April 4, 1977 debates in the United States House of Representatives regarding the FDCPA and specifically a then-proposed weekly limit on debt collection calls.  Members of Congress raised specific and detailed objections on the record about the Constitutionality of the call frequency limit proposal at that time and also concerns about false claims. 
  • Debt collectors defending against hyper-technical FDCPA lawsuits by consumer attorneys commonly ask the same question: “How could the consumer possibly have been harmed by this supposed violation of the FDCPA?”  The question is especially poignant when the purported FDCPA violation arises from a collection letter the consumer never read or from the language in the collection letter upon which the consumer never intended to rely.  Does the concept of “no harm, no foul” apply to the FDCPA? In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Casillas matter dismissing an alleged hyper-technical FDCPA letter violation.  They also discuss the recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal regarding interest and share thoughts on the CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules.
  • As most debt collectors know, sending any collection notice into Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania (the States with Federal Courts in the Third Circuit) will likely result in an FDCPA class action lawsuit against the debt collector.  Typically these lawsuits assert that the validation language used in the collection letter does not require the consumer to communicate disputes in writing only allegedly in violation of the FDCPA.  While several appeals on this issue are pending and consolidated before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a decision from the Third Circuit in 2017 may provide guidance on how it will rule in favor of the debt collectors.   In the most recent episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin are joined by their colleague, attorney Aylix Jensen, to discuss the Third Circuit validation issues, including the Jewsevskyj case, compliance with the new California privacy law (the CCPA) and credit reporting accounts in bankruptcy (see recent article on this issue http://www.insidearm.com/news/00044941-credit-reporting-debts-bankruptcy-deluge-/)
  • Debt collectors face an historic onslaught of FDCPA cases in Pennsylvania (and to a lesser extent New Jersey), all of which allege that statutory language in collection letters which tracks the FDCPA somehow violates the law.  The Courts in these cases take the position that a consumer must be apprised that a dispute must be in writing to be effective, even though this position is contrary to the plain language of the FDCPA and rulings by the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal.  This issue has been addressed extensively in InsideARM:  http://www.insidearm.com/news/00044725-22m-settlement-proposed-fcra-case-pulling/ http://www.insidearm.com/news/00044669-open-letter-cfpb-1692g-issues-within-thir/ In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin directly address whether debt collectors should change notices sent into Pennsylvania and also discuss the impact of the settlement in the Crunch v. Marks decision along with the recent California out-of-statute disclosure.
  • Collectors frequently point to contradictory language among the FDCPA and other statutes as proof that standardized debt collection rules are needed in this industry.  However, even in an industry where consumer attorneys frequently make "creative" arguments, it is rare to see a claim that the FDCPA itself contains contradictory language. In a number of recent cases, consumer attorneys are arguing that the validation language from the statute – the same language collectors have been using since the FDCPA was enacted in 1977 -- is now somehow unclear and confusing.   Specifically, consumer attorneys argue that the first sentence of the validation notice (relating to disputes), which does not contain an "in writing" requirement, contradicts the second sentence of the notice, which does require a written request from the consumer to receive verification.  Unfortunately, two Courts in New Jersey within the past year sided with the consumers in denying debt collectors' motions to dismiss on this issue.  Two more cases on the issue – on which the debt collectors prevailed – are pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin examine the recent cases alleging that the standard validation language violates the FDCPA and provide guidance for debt collectors seeking to avoid liability on this issue. 
  • Debt collectors were given clarity regarding two thorny FDCPA issues recently by decisions issued from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  In the case of Portalatin v. Blatt, the Court held that a consumer was entitled to a single recovery of an FDCPA statutory penalty rather than multiple recoveries for the same alleged violation from each Defendant.  This issue of Plaintiffs seeking to “stack” recoveries for the same alleged violations from multiple Defendant is now finally resolved in favor of the debt industry.  The Seventh Circuit also held in Dunbar v. Kohn that that sentence “This settlement may have tax consequences.” did not violate the FDCPA, thus joining the numerous other Court that held this language complies with the law.  In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the Portalatin and Dunbar decisions in addition to strategies for debt collectors to avoid FDCPA on debt collection communications regarding interest and out-of-statute disclosures.  Links to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rulings in Portalatin and Dunbar can be found below. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-13/C:16-1578:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2201521:S:0 http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-19/C:17-2134:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2189247:S:0

Affiliations

Professional Associations

  • Minnesota State Bar Association
  • Compliance chair, The Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA International) – Minnesota Members’ Attorney Program (MAP) (2013-2015)
Close