Robert Bender v. Elmore & Throop, P.C., 963 F.3d 403

In April 2016 Elmore & Throop, P.C., retained by the Benders' HOA, left a notice claiming unpaid assessments and demanded payment of >$1,000 including fees and attorneys’ fees. The Benders produced cancelled checks and disputed the debt.
The Benders repeatedly disputed the debt and, on May 18, 2016, sent a written request that Elmore cease contacting them about the claim.
Elmore continued collection communications over 2016–2017, including letters in February and March 2017 that added fees and acknowledged prior payments.
In January 2018 an Elmore attorney left a voicemail asserting a lien and saying “this whole thing would not have happened if you would just pay your bills.” On February 6, 2018 Elmore sent an unsolicited letter with an updated ledger and added fees; the Benders filed suit on April 5, 2018 alleging FDCPA violations.
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred, holding the FDCPA’s one-year limitations period ran from the first alleged violation and later similar violations did not reset the period. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether each FDCPA violation starts its own one-year limitations period under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)	Benders: § 1692k(d) starts a new one-year period from the date of each violation; January–February 2018 communications therefore are timely	Elmore: Limitations runs from the first violation; later similar communications do not reset the clock, so the entire suit is untimely	The court held each separate FDCPA violation triggers its own one-year limitations period; claims based on Jan–Feb 2018 communications were not time-barred
Whether similar or repeated communications should be aggregated into a single claim for limitations purposes	Benders: Aggregation would unfairly bar later actionable conduct; statutory text supports per-violation periods	Elmore: Treating repeated communications as one claim prevents relitigation and treats the series as a single continuing wrong	Court rejected aggregation and held separate violations are separately actionable for § 1692k(d) timing

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355 (2019) (statutory text identifies date of violation as start of the limitations period)
United States v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 1996) (a separate FDCPA violation occurs every time an improper communication, threat, or misrepresentation is made)
Demarais v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A., 869 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) (each violation restarts § 1692k(d)’s limitations period)
Llewellyn v. Allstate Home Loans, Inc., 711 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2013) (reaffirming that repeated or restated violations can give rise to distinct limitations periods)