Greetings...

just some random thoughts that come to mind, formed as inqueries..
__________________________________________________ ______________
"Fair Debt Collection Practice Act did not apply to transaction involving a loan for agricultural purposes of $118,000 as debt was not incurred for personal, family or household purposes, and lenders were not attempting to collect another's debt under statute. Munk v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, C.A.10 (Kan.) 1986, 791 F.2d 130."

What if, though commercial or in this case agricultural in nature..(which FDCPA is limited to consumer) the monies were virtually all for personal use?
__________________________________________________ _____________
"Consumers failed to prove that creditor's law firm and attorney employed by firm "regularly collected debts" so as to constitute "debt collectors" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), where district court found that only two percent of law firm's overall practices consisted of debt collection cases, that firm did not employ individuals full-time for the purpose of collecting debts, that only 7.4%, 29 of 389 cases annually, of attorney's overall practice consisted of debt collection cases, and that he represented debtors in the majority of his debt collection cases. Schroyer v. Frankel, C.A.6 (Ohio) 1999, 197 F.3d 1170. Consumer Protection 10"

What if they actively advertise (website or otherwise) they collect debts?
__________________________________________________ ______________

"A creditor is not a debt collector for the purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and creditors are not subject to the FDCPA when collecting their accounts. Stafford v. Cross Country Bank, W.D.Ky.2003, 262 F.Supp.2d 776. Consumer Protection 10"

What if the "creditor" assigned/transferred or otherwise sold the note .. only to regain it after say 90 days in default?

What if they are still the so-called creditor...whilst exempted from the provisions of §1692 .. & in pursuit of the actual debt collector.. can they not be caused to answer under the doctrine of respondeat superior?
__________________________________________________ _____________

Creditor-bank's conduct on its own behalf could not subject it to liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); creditor could not be "debt collector" within meaning of the FDCPA. KPMG Peat Marwick v. Texas Commerce Bank, S.D.Tex.1997, 976 F.Supp. 623, reconsideration denied 1997 WL 289137. Consumer Protection 10

Chase Bank of Texas f/k/a Texas Commerce Bank N.A. should be expecting a "delivery" in a few days.. as whilst exempt as a "creditor' they remain culpable to the doctrine of respondeat superior for actions taken by debt collectors under their behest. oh wait.. sorry.. that wasn't in question..

reckon i don't have anymore questions right now..

peace