In his nationwide civil litigation practice, Mike places significant emphasis on defending creditors, debt buyers, debt collectors, and lawyers in actions arising under:

  • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
  • Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
  • Additional federal and state laws and regulations

Mike provides advice and counsel on litigation and compliance issues across the United States, frequently securing decisions in his clients’ favor. His areas of practice also include contract law and defense of consumer law claims.

A frequent presenter and lecturer on FDCPA, FCRA, and collection issues, Mike co-hosts an innovative monthly audio blog series, The Debt Collection Drill, distributed by insideARM.com. Mike examines developments involving FDCPA, FCRA, TCPA, and state regulatory laws in these popular and frequently shared podcasts and blogs.

Mike has helped shape debt collection law in various published cases that preserved and expanded the rights of debt collectors, debt buyers, and creditors. As a member of the ACA International Members’ Attorney Program (MAP), Mike is approved by the ACA as counsel qualified to review collection notices for compliance with the FDCPA.

Experience and Reported Decisions

  • Victorious defense of FDCPA claim based on the alleged failure to include an interest disclosure. Devised strategy and defended a national collection action in an action that tried to expand upon existing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case law. Our client prevailed via summary judgment in which the U.S. District Court held that a collection agency was not required to include an interest disclosure statement when interest was not accruing. The decision was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit and thus nullified the attempt to expand negative case law. 
  • Court decisions holding that tax consequence language did not violate the FDCPA. Successfully obtained numerous decisions in multiple jurisdictions holding that the inclusion of language in debt collection notices advising consumers of the potential tax consequence of debt settlement did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 

Mike’s reported cases include:

  •  Remington v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 16 Civ. 865, 2017 WL 1014994, at *4 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2017)
  • Everett v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 16 Civ. 1806, 2016 WL 6948052, at *2, *6 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 28, 2016)
  • Church v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 1383231 (W.D.N.Y. March 19, 2018)
  • Illobre v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 6581332 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2016)
  • Antista v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-3567 (WJM), 2017 WL 259771, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 2, 2018)
  • Sutton v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 121 F. Supp. 3d 309, 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
  • Taylor v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
  • Taylor v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 886 F. 3d 212 (2nd Cir. 2018)
  • Feldheim v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 257 F. Supp. 3d 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
  • Borozan v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 17-11542, 2018 WL 3085217 (D.N.J. June 22, 2018)
  • Degrasse v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 16-cv-3727 (KAM) 2018 WL 221461 (E.D.N.Y. March 5, 2018)
  • Jewsevskyj v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 6162728 at *4 (E.D. Pa. 2016)
  • Jewsevskyj v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 704 Fed. App’x, 145, 147, 2017 WL 2992499 (3rd Circ. 2017)
  • Krieger v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 16-cv-1132 (EDNY July 7, 2016)
  • Karp v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 2013 WL 6734110 (W.D. Tex.)
  • Peters v. Fin. Recovery Servs, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 3d 915 (W.D. Mo. 2014)
  • Ranwick v. Texas Gila, LLC 37 F. Supp. 3d 1053 (D. Minn. 2014)
  • Eaton v. Central Portfolio Control, Inc., No. 14-cv-747 (DSD/FLN), 2014 WL 6982807 (D. Minn. 2014)
  • Bow v. Ad Astra Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 18-0510-G, 2018 WL 3455510 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2018)
  • Doyle v. Ad Astra Recovery Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 1169121 (D.N.J. March 6, 2018)
  • Kellar v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 2014 WL 129239 (D.N.D.)
  • Asbridge v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 2017 WL 1176418 (D. Col.)
  • Jae v. ChexSystems Inc., 2018 WL 3368871 (N.D. Ohio)

Credentials

Education

University of Minnesota Law School, J.D.; dean's list

St. Cloud State University, B.S.; cum laude

Admissions

  • Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern 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 Eastern District of Missouri
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
  • 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 Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • 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 Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

News & Insights

Speaking Engagements

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.
  • Regulation F contemplates debt collectors communicating with consumers using a scripted “limited content” voicemail message which contains the business name of the debt collector, but “does not indicate that the debt collector is in the debt collection business.”  While consumer advocates agree that this limited content message will be extremely beneficial to consumers, debt collectors must proceed cautiously with implementation to ensure full compliance with all requirements of the limited content message contained within Regulation F.

     

    In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman, Sarah Doerr and Brad Armstrong provide practical guidance for implementation of the Regulation F limited content message and the attorneys also examine the legal restrictions regarding the use of certain words in a collection agency name.  

  • A debt collector must verify the identity of a communication
    recipient to ensure a right-party contact while also avoiding a disclosure
    about the existence of the debt to a third-party. Thus, a debt collector
    must, when asked, provide meaningful information about the purpose of
    a telephone call to a third-party – even when the third-party refuses to
    identify herself – without disclosing that the call is an attempt to collect
    a debt.
    In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss &
    Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin are joined by attorney
    Aylix Jensen who elaborates on her recent, complete victory in Federal
    Court establishing that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by
    stating it was a “financial services company” calling regarding a
    “personal business matter” to an unidentified individual – the Plaintiff –
    who the Court identified as the correct “customer for the account.”

  • In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys discuss the recent, historic changes to the laws restricting debt collection and how agencies can comply.  

  • 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-/)

Affiliations

Professional Associations

  • ACA Members' Attorney Program
  • American Bar Association
  • Minnesota State Bar Association
  • Hennepin County Bar Association
Close