978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-24-08 Part 2

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 13
subject Words 3574
subject Authors Roger LeRoy Miller

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
and Hutchins now argue that since the payors on its NSF checks were also
page-pf2
fraud was rebuttable under Wisconsin law, and because the debt collector had
not made the showing required to establish fraudulent intent under state law. Id.
In rejecting the defendants' argument, the court commented that, even if the
exempt debt collectors from following the Act if they could prove that the
consumer intended his check to be dishonored or accepted credit from a
merchant intending default. No section of the Act requires an inquiry into
worthiness of the debtor, or purports to protect only “deserving” debtors. To the
contrary, Congress has clearly indicated its belief that no consumer deserves to
intended a fraud exception to the Act, the wrong occasioned by debtor fraud is
more appropriately redressed under the statutory and common law remedies
already in place, not by a judicially-created exception that selectively gives a
green light to the very abuses proscribed by the Act.
Id. at 1330.
Bass, and it is time we put to rest any lingering doubts as to the nonexistence of
a fraud exception to the FDCPA.
Id. at 595 (citation omitted). The court's analysis continued:
[T]he FDCPA's legislative history reflects that Congress acknowledged there
may be a “number of persons who willfully refuse to pay just debts,” but
We agree that, given the legislative history of the FDCPA, its structure and text,
we could not craft the kind of fraud exception that underlies the arguments of
Check Investors without amending the statute.
B. The Payors of the NSF Checks are “Consumers” under the FDCPA.
page-pf3
[5] Link to KeyCite Notes[6] Link to KeyCite Notes As noted earlier, “[t]he FDCPA
they argue that
[a]n individual's conduct, when taken as a whole, determines whether he or she
qualifies as a consumer for FDCPA purposes. An individual who issues a NSF
check or a closed account check, in exchange for money, goods, services or
insurance, and who subsequently fails to make restitution within the criminal
and tortfeasors, those labels would advance neither our inquiry, nor Appellants'
position, because “any” is all inclusive and does not exclude criminals or
tortfeasors. Rather, it unambiguously includes them. As noted above in our
discussion of the analysis in Bass and Keele, it is clear that Congress realized
that some people who write “bad checks” do so knowingly and willfully and that
remains obligated to pay, see Duffy, 133 F.3d at 1123 (“[A] check written by a
consumer in a transaction for goods or services evidences the “drawer's
obligation to pay” and this obligation remains even if the check is dishonored
....”), the payors of those checks are “consumers” within the meaning of the
FDCPA.
be owed or due another,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). A “creditor” is one who “offers or
extends to offer credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed.” 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(4).
[8] Link to KeyCite Notes[9] Link to KeyCite Notes The district court held that
Check Investors and Hutchins FN11 are “debt collectors” as defined by the
page-pf4
was a “debt collector” and that the district court should not have dismissed
FDCPA claims against it. We explained:
FN11. Attorneys who regularly engage in debt collection or debt collection
litigation are covered by the FDCPA, and their litigation activities must comply
with the requirements of the FDCPA. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 292, 115
default when purchased. Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F.Supp. 1289,
1293 (D.Del.1990).
Courts have indicated that an assignee of an obligation is not a “debt collector” if
the obligation is not in default at the time of assignment; conversely, an assignee
may be deemed a “debt collector” if the obligation is already in default when it is
they are “debt collectors” was error because they are actually “creditors” FN13
collecting debts actually owed to them, as opposed to “debt collectors” collecting
obligations owed to someone else. The FDCPA defines “creditor” as
FN13. The district court held that Check Investors and Hutchins were “debt
collectors” as defined in the FDCPA. It did not address their claim that they were
Investors bought the NSF checks from Telecheck, Check Investors is the actual
owner of those checks and is therefore not collecting “debts of another,” as a
debt collector would. Rather, according to Appellants, Check Investors is actually
the entity “to whom a debt is owed.” They claim further that because Check
Investors is owed the debt, it did not “receive[ ] an assignment or transfer” of the
page-pf5
legislation.
Admittedly, Check Investors appears at first blush to satisfy the statutory
definition of a creditor. As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted in
Schlosser v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534, 536 (7th Cir.2003), “for
debts that do not originate with the one attempting collection, but are acquired
the other hand, if it simply acquires the debt for collection, it is acting more like a
debt collector.” Id. Thus, in determining if one is a “creditor” or a “debt collector,”
courts have focused on the status of the debt at the time it was acquired. 15
U.S.C. § 1692a controls that inquiry. That provision provides in relevant part:
(6) The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of
debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person....
15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii). In Pollice, we relied on this provision of the FDCPA
to hold that one attempting to collect a debt is a “debt collector” under the
FDCPA if the debt in question was in default when acquired. Conversely, we
concluded that § 1692a means that an entity is a creditor if the debt it is
Admittedly, focusing on the status of the debt when it was acquired overlooks the
fact that the person engaging in the collection activity may actually be owed the
debt and is, therefore, at least nominally a creditor. Nevertheless, pursuant to §
1692a, Congress has unambiguously directed our focus to the time the debt was
acquired in determining whether one is acting as a creditor or debt collector
page-pf6
creditors, “who generally are restrained by the desire to protect their good will
when collecting past due accounts,” independent collectors are likely to have “no
future contact with the consumer and often are unconcerned with the consumer's
opinion of them.” Id. at 1696.
Thus, as the court explained in Schlosser:
is, for purposes of regulating communications and collections practices,
effectively the same as that between originator and the debtor. If the loan is in
default, no ongoing relationship is likely and the only activity will be collection.
323 F.3d at 538.
Here, Check Investors acquired the defaulted checks only for collection
adds to each check. Their tactics then allow them a remarkable measure of
success even though prior debt collection efforts have failed. The result is a very
profitable enterprise.
The fact that the NSF checks were purchased and owned outright by Check
Investors, rather than Check Investors merely receiving an assignment of the
or the future of his/her business would have engaged in the kind of conduct that
was the daily fare of the collectors at Check Investors. Neither Check Investors
nor Hutchinson intended any future contact with the payees of the NSF checks
they acquired, and their collection practices reflected as much. The collectors
working there resorted to whatever harassment appeared likely to succeed; the
page-pf7
Congress has directed us to focus on whether a debt was in default when
acquired to determine the status of “creditor” vs. “debt collector.”
D. The Federal Trade Commission Act.
[10] Link to KeyCite Notes As noted earlier, Hutchins and Check Investors do not
dispute the FTC's claim that their collection practices constituted unfair and
Nevertheless, Check Investors argues that
[t]his is not a case where consumers are being solicited to buy time-shares in
non-existent condos or swamp land in Florida, and that the district court erred in
determining that the Check Investors' practices were, in fact, deceptive as to a
consumer.
circumstance requiring us to consider it. Srein v. Frankford Trust Co., 323 F.3d
214, 224 n. 8 (3d Cir.2003). Check Investors does not allege the existence of any
compelling circumstance, and we can think of none. Thus, we will not consider its
argument that the district court erred in finding that its practices were deceptive
to a consumer.
VI. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, we will affirm the district court.
fraud was rebuttable under Wisconsin law, and because the debt collector had
not made the showing required to establish fraudulent intent under state law. Id.
In rejecting the defendants' argument, the court commented that, even if the
exempt debt collectors from following the Act if they could prove that the
consumer intended his check to be dishonored or accepted credit from a
merchant intending default. No section of the Act requires an inquiry into
worthiness of the debtor, or purports to protect only “deserving” debtors. To the
contrary, Congress has clearly indicated its belief that no consumer deserves to
intended a fraud exception to the Act, the wrong occasioned by debtor fraud is
more appropriately redressed under the statutory and common law remedies
already in place, not by a judicially-created exception that selectively gives a
green light to the very abuses proscribed by the Act.
Id. at 1330.
Bass, and it is time we put to rest any lingering doubts as to the nonexistence of
a fraud exception to the FDCPA.
Id. at 595 (citation omitted). The court's analysis continued:
[T]he FDCPA's legislative history reflects that Congress acknowledged there
may be a “number of persons who willfully refuse to pay just debts,” but
We agree that, given the legislative history of the FDCPA, its structure and text,
we could not craft the kind of fraud exception that underlies the arguments of
Check Investors without amending the statute.
B. The Payors of the NSF Checks are “Consumers” under the FDCPA.
[5] Link to KeyCite Notes[6] Link to KeyCite Notes As noted earlier, “[t]he FDCPA
they argue that
[a]n individual's conduct, when taken as a whole, determines whether he or she
qualifies as a consumer for FDCPA purposes. An individual who issues a NSF
check or a closed account check, in exchange for money, goods, services or
insurance, and who subsequently fails to make restitution within the criminal
and tortfeasors, those labels would advance neither our inquiry, nor Appellants'
position, because “any” is all inclusive and does not exclude criminals or
tortfeasors. Rather, it unambiguously includes them. As noted above in our
discussion of the analysis in Bass and Keele, it is clear that Congress realized
that some people who write “bad checks” do so knowingly and willfully and that
remains obligated to pay, see Duffy, 133 F.3d at 1123 (“[A] check written by a
consumer in a transaction for goods or services evidences the “drawer's
obligation to pay” and this obligation remains even if the check is dishonored
....”), the payors of those checks are “consumers” within the meaning of the
FDCPA.
be owed or due another,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). A “creditor” is one who “offers or
extends to offer credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed.” 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(4).
[8] Link to KeyCite Notes[9] Link to KeyCite Notes The district court held that
Check Investors and Hutchins FN11 are “debt collectors” as defined by the
was a “debt collector” and that the district court should not have dismissed
FDCPA claims against it. We explained:
FN11. Attorneys who regularly engage in debt collection or debt collection
litigation are covered by the FDCPA, and their litigation activities must comply
with the requirements of the FDCPA. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 292, 115
default when purchased. Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F.Supp. 1289,
1293 (D.Del.1990).
Courts have indicated that an assignee of an obligation is not a “debt collector” if
the obligation is not in default at the time of assignment; conversely, an assignee
may be deemed a “debt collector” if the obligation is already in default when it is
they are “debt collectors” was error because they are actually “creditors” FN13
collecting debts actually owed to them, as opposed to “debt collectors” collecting
obligations owed to someone else. The FDCPA defines “creditor” as
FN13. The district court held that Check Investors and Hutchins were “debt
collectors” as defined in the FDCPA. It did not address their claim that they were
Investors bought the NSF checks from Telecheck, Check Investors is the actual
owner of those checks and is therefore not collecting “debts of another,” as a
debt collector would. Rather, according to Appellants, Check Investors is actually
the entity “to whom a debt is owed.” They claim further that because Check
Investors is owed the debt, it did not “receive[ ] an assignment or transfer” of the
legislation.
Admittedly, Check Investors appears at first blush to satisfy the statutory
definition of a creditor. As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted in
Schlosser v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534, 536 (7th Cir.2003), “for
debts that do not originate with the one attempting collection, but are acquired
the other hand, if it simply acquires the debt for collection, it is acting more like a
debt collector.” Id. Thus, in determining if one is a “creditor” or a “debt collector,”
courts have focused on the status of the debt at the time it was acquired. 15
U.S.C. § 1692a controls that inquiry. That provision provides in relevant part:
(6) The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of
debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person....
15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii). In Pollice, we relied on this provision of the FDCPA
to hold that one attempting to collect a debt is a “debt collector” under the
FDCPA if the debt in question was in default when acquired. Conversely, we
concluded that § 1692a means that an entity is a creditor if the debt it is
Admittedly, focusing on the status of the debt when it was acquired overlooks the
fact that the person engaging in the collection activity may actually be owed the
debt and is, therefore, at least nominally a creditor. Nevertheless, pursuant to §
1692a, Congress has unambiguously directed our focus to the time the debt was
acquired in determining whether one is acting as a creditor or debt collector
creditors, “who generally are restrained by the desire to protect their good will
when collecting past due accounts,” independent collectors are likely to have “no
future contact with the consumer and often are unconcerned with the consumer's
opinion of them.” Id. at 1696.
Thus, as the court explained in Schlosser:
is, for purposes of regulating communications and collections practices,
effectively the same as that between originator and the debtor. If the loan is in
default, no ongoing relationship is likely and the only activity will be collection.
323 F.3d at 538.
Here, Check Investors acquired the defaulted checks only for collection
adds to each check. Their tactics then allow them a remarkable measure of
success even though prior debt collection efforts have failed. The result is a very
profitable enterprise.
The fact that the NSF checks were purchased and owned outright by Check
Investors, rather than Check Investors merely receiving an assignment of the
or the future of his/her business would have engaged in the kind of conduct that
was the daily fare of the collectors at Check Investors. Neither Check Investors
nor Hutchinson intended any future contact with the payees of the NSF checks
they acquired, and their collection practices reflected as much. The collectors
working there resorted to whatever harassment appeared likely to succeed; the
Congress has directed us to focus on whether a debt was in default when
acquired to determine the status of “creditor” vs. “debt collector.”
D. The Federal Trade Commission Act.
[10] Link to KeyCite Notes As noted earlier, Hutchins and Check Investors do not
dispute the FTC's claim that their collection practices constituted unfair and
Nevertheless, Check Investors argues that
[t]his is not a case where consumers are being solicited to buy time-shares in
non-existent condos or swamp land in Florida, and that the district court erred in
determining that the Check Investors' practices were, in fact, deceptive as to a
consumer.
circumstance requiring us to consider it. Srein v. Frankford Trust Co., 323 F.3d
214, 224 n. 8 (3d Cir.2003). Check Investors does not allege the existence of any
compelling circumstance, and we can think of none. Thus, we will not consider its
argument that the district court erred in finding that its practices were deceptive
to a consumer.
VI. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, we will affirm the district court.

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.