15 U.S.C. § 1692a - Definitions
As used in this subchapter--
(1) The term "Commission" means the Federal Trade Commission.
(2) The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.
(3) The term "consumer" means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.
(4) The term "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.
(5) The term "debt" means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.
(6) The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 1692f(6) of this title, such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include--
(A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor;
(
any person while acting as a debt collector for another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the person acting as a debt collector does so only for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if the principal business of such person is not the collection of debts;
(C) any officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties;
(D) any person while serving or attempting to serve legal process on any other person in connection with the judicial enforcement of any debt;
(E) any nonprofit organization which, at the request of consumers, performs bona fide consumer credit counseling and assists consumers in the liquidation of their debts by receiving payments from such consumers and distributing such amounts to creditors; and
(F) any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (i) is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation or a bona fide escrow arrangement; (ii) concerns a debt which was originated by such person; (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person; or (iv) concerns a debt obtained by such person as a secured party in a commercial credit transaction involving the creditor.
(7) The term "location information" means a consumer's place of abode and his telephone number at such place, or his place of employment.
(8) The term "State" means any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing.
--------------- Cites -----------------
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Agricultural loans 8
Attorneys 13
Attorney fees, debt 3a
Bail bondsmen, debt collector 16a
Business transactions 4
Checks, debt 4a
Child support 5
Civil damages 11
Collection and servicing agencies 14
Communication 1
Consumer 2
Corporate entities 20
Creditors, debt collector 14a
Debt 3-11
Debt - Generally 3
Debt - Agricultural loans 8
Debt - Attorney fees 3a
Debt - Banks and banking 10
Debt - Business transactions 4
Debt - Checks 4a
Debt - Child support 5
Debt - Civil damages 11
Debt - Divorce actions 5a
Debt - Friendly loans 6
Debt - Housing assessments 7
Debt - Law enforcement matters 6a
Debt - Tax levy 9
Debt - Theft 11a
Debt collector 12-23
Debt collector - Generally 12
Debt collector - Attorneys 13
Debt collector - Bail bondsmen 16a
Debt collector - Banks and banking 15
Debt collector - Collection and servicing agencies 14
Debt collector - Corporate entities 20
Debt collector - Creditors 14a
Debt collector - Employees 21
Debt collector - Financing companies 16
Debt collector - Guaranty agencies 19
Debt collector - Insurers 18
Debt collector - Judicial entities 23
Debt collector - Media 22
Debt collector - Mortgagees 17
Debt collector - Repossessors 23a
Debt collector - Service providers 23b
Divorce actions, debt 5a
Employees 21
Financing companies 16
Friendly loans 6
Guaranty agencies 19
Housing assessments 7
Insurers 18
Judicial entities 23
Law enforcement matters, debt 6a
Media 22
Mortgagees 17
Official duties 24
Personal, family or household purposes 26
Repossessors, debt collector 23a
Service providers, debt collector 23b
Tax levy 9
Theft, debt 11a
Transactions 25
1. Communication
Letters sent by law firm to property owner in attempt to collect delinquent water assessment for municipality were each a "communication" relating to a "debt" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, E.D.Pa.2003, 262 F.Supp.2d 520. Consumer Protection 10
Notice demanding payment of rent arrearage or surrender of rented premises to landlord was "communication" to collect debt, within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Romea v. Heiberger & Associates, S.D.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 712, affirmed 163 F.3d 111. Consumer Protection 10
Collection bureau's notices to debtor qualified as "communications" in connection with the collection of a debt under this section. In re Scrimpsher, Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.1982, 17 B.R. 999. Consumer Protection 10
2. Consumer
Homeowner who owed delinquent municipal water assessment was "consumer" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, E.D.Pa.2003, 262 F.Supp.2d 520. Consumer Protection 1; Consumer Protection 10
Customers of long-distance telephone services provider were not "consumers," within meaning of disclosure requirement of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) that provider allegedly violated when it failed to notify customers in their telephone bill that it was assisting in collection of debt owed by customers' daughter-in-law to provider's former subsidiary or affiliate, given that customers were not obligated to pay daughter-in-law's debt. Conboy v. AT & T Corp., S.D.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 492, affirmed 241 F.3d 242. Consumer Protection 1
Debtor, as natural person who was obligated to pay debt to hospital for services provided in connection with her kidney infection, was "consumer" within meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Creighton v. Emporia Credit Service, Inc., E.D.Va.1997, 981 F.Supp. 411. Consumer Protection 10
Patient who had received medical services on credit, and who was primarily responsible for payment of account at medical center, qualified as "consumer" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Adams v. Law Offices of Stuckert & Yates, E.D.Pa.1996, 926 F.Supp. 521. Consumer Protection 1; Consumer Protection 10
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, establishing liability of debt collector who fails to comply with the Act "with respect to any person," does not limit recovery to "consumers," and thus would not preclude recovery by person to whom debt collector sent letter seeking to collect debt of such person's deceased father even if such person were not a consumer; but, in any event, such person was a "consumer" when collectors admittedly demanded payment of debt from him. Dutton v. Wolhar, D.Del.1992, 809 F.Supp. 1130. Consumer Protection 10
3. Debt--Generally
Default does not occur on a debt immediately after payment becomes due, for purposes of applying debt collection requirements under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Alibrandi v. Financial Outsourcing Services, Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2003, 333 F.3d 82. Consumer Protection 10
Unpaid administrative and other fees charged under rental agreement by automobile and truck rental company in event of accident constituted "debt" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Brown v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., C.A.11 (Fla.) 1997, 119 F.3d 922. Consumer Protection 10
Motor vehicle impoundment and towing fees arising out of action authorized by state law enforcement agency did not constitute "debt," within the meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); a debt under the FDCPA was required to arise from consensual transaction where parties negotiated or contracted for consumer-related goods or services, and impoundment was not consensual consumer transaction. Betts v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., W.D.Wash.2003, 245 F.Supp.2d 1130.
First requisite element of debt under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is existence of obligation. Ernst v. Jesse L. Riddle, P.C., M.D.La.1997, 964 F.Supp. 213. Consumer Protection 10
"Debt," under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), is transaction in which consumer is offered or extended the right to acquire money, property, insurance or services which are primarily for household purposes and to defer payment. Adams v. Law Offices of Stuckert & Yates, E.D.Pa.1996, 926 F.Supp. 521. Consumer Protection 10
Obligations owed to city for water and sewer charges by individuals, corporations, and businesses who owned their property for business purposes did not qualify as debts under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, E.D.Pa.2003, 215 F.R.D. 495. Consumer Protection 10
Filing of proof of claim in bankruptcy, even for debt whose amount is disputed, does not trigger the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In re Cooper, Bkrtcy.N.D.Fla.2000, 253 B.R. 286. Consumer Protection 10
Collection agency was not prohibited by this subchapter from recovering a percentage of the amount due for collection costs where such amounts were expressly authorized by agreements creating the debts. Grant Road Lumber Co., Inc. v. Wystrach, Ariz.App.1984, 682 P.2d 1146, 140 Ariz. 479. Consumer Protection 10
3A. ---- Attorney fees
Even assuming demand for attorney fees in landlord's eviction complaint qualified as a communication regarding a "debt," for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the attorney who represented landlord in eviction proceeding was not a "debt collector," under the FDCPA, absent showing that attorney regularly represented creditors in debt collection activities. Cook v. Hamrick, D.Colo.2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 1202. Consumer Protection 10
4. ---- Business transactions
Dishonored check written in payment for consumer goods created "debt" within purview of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Snow v. Jesse L. Riddle, P.C., C.A.10 (Utah) 1998, 143 F.3d 1350. Consumer Protection 10
District court properly dismissed guarantor's state and federal consumer debt collection claims against owner of loan and guaranty, even though guarantor claimed that, because owner was not first owner of loan and guaranty, owner was engaging in collection of debt for another; guarantor's obligation, which arose out of commercial transaction, did not constitute a "debt" under either Federal Fair Debt Collection Act or Texas Debt Collection Act. First Gibraltar Bank, FSB v. Smith, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1995, 62 F.3d 133, rehearing denied. Consumer Protection 10; Consumer Protection 36.1
Borrower's debt was not a "consumer debt" within meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); the evidence of record established that at the time of the note's execution, during previous court actions, and on the face of the note and agreement, the debt arose from commercial, not contrary, purposes, and was characterized by both parties as a "commercial transaction," not one for personal or household use. Fleet Nat. Bank v. Baker, D.Mass.2003, 263 F.Supp.2d 150. Consumer Protection 10
The activity of foreclosing on the property pursuant to a deed of trust is not the collection of a "debt" within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Hulse v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, D.Or.2002, 195 F.Supp.2d 1188. Consumer Protection 10
Purchase of credit card processing unit was not transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and, thus, obligation arising from such purchase did not constitute "debt" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Holman v. West Valley Collection Services, Inc., D.Minn.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 935. Consumer Protection 10
Debtor's obligation to pay automobile liability insurance premiums was "debt" within meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), even though debtor was compelled by state law to obtain such insurance and even though obligation benefited others in addition to debtor. Kahn v. Rowley, M.D.La.1997, 968 F.Supp. 1095, withdrawn from bound volume. Consumer Protection 10
Neither federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) nor Texas Debt Collection Practices Act (DCPA) applied to leases for security equipment obtained and installed by lessees in their family-owned and operated stores, inasmuch as Acts applied to debts arising out of consumer transactions for personal, family, or household purposes, and lessees used equipment for business purposes, even though equipment was intended to provide security to family members working at stores. Garza v. Bancorp Group, Inc., S.D.Tex.1996, 955 F.Supp. 68. Consumer Protection 10; Consumer Protection 10
Notes used to pay for a portion of investor's partnership interest in tax- shelter limited partnership were not a "debt" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Hartel, S.D.N.Y.1990, 741 F.Supp. 1139. Consumer Protection 10
Collection of purely business-related debt was not governed by Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Bank of Boston Intern. of Miami v. Arguello Tefel, E.D.N.Y.1986, 644 F.Supp. 1423. Consumer Protection 10
Debt incurred purely for business reasons is not covered by Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mendez v. Apple Bank for Sav., N.Y.City Civ.Ct.1989, 541 N.Y.S.2d 920, 143 Misc.2d 915. Consumer Protection 10
4A. ---- Checks
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) broad definition of "debt" as any obligation to pay arising from consumer transaction applied to dishonored checks, given that check issuers' payment obligations arose from transactions for personal or household goods; thus, check issuers stated claims under FDCPA when they alleged that attorney and company attempting to collect payment on dishonored checks violated FDCPA. Duffy v. Landberg, C.A.8 (Minn.) 1998, 133 F.3d 1120, rehearing denied, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 62, 525 U.S. 821, 142 L.Ed.2d 49. Consumer Protection 10
Check writer stated claim when she alleged that check collection agency, attorney, and law firm violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in attempting to collect dishonored check, inasmuch as dishonored check was debt under FDCPA. Charles v. Lundgren & Associates, P.C., C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1997, 119 F.3d 739, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 627, 522 U.S. 1028, 139 L.Ed.2d 607, on remand 1999 WL 1576167. Consumer Protection 38
Replacement checks, which were sought in order to replace lost or stolen checks tendered in payment of medical services, were "debts" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); extension of credit was not required in order for the makers' obligations to qualify as "debts." Kvassay v. Hasty, D.Kan.2002, 236 F.Supp.2d 1240.
Dishonored personal check issued to pay for clothing was "debt" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Gary v. Goldman & Co., E.D.Pa.2002, 180 F.Supp.2d 668.
5. ---- Child support
Child support payments are not "debts" encompassed within scope of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Mabe v. G.C. Services Ltd. Partnership, C.A.4 (Va.) 1994, 32 F.3d 86. Consumer Protection 10
Former husband's child support obligation was not debt arising out of transaction with subject primarily of "personal, family, or household purposes," within meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Act, and thus, former husband's child support payments were not "debts" protected by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; former husband could not point to any money, property, insurance, or services he received in connection with the child support obligations. Brown v. Child Support Advocates, D.Utah 1994, 878 F.Supp. 1451. Consumer Protection 10
5A. ---- Divorce actions
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was not applicable to law firm's efforts to enforce property settlement obligations imposed by divorce decree; obligations, though based on negotiated marital termination agreement, did not arise from consumer transaction, and thus were not "debts," within meaning of Act. Hicken v. Arnold, Anderson & Dove, P.L.L.P., D.Minn.2001, 137 F.Supp.2d 1141. Consumer Protection 10
6. ---- Friendly loans
Loan between friends made so that debtor could invest in software company was "business loan," not "consumer debt," and, thus, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not apply; debtor's intended use of funds could not be characterized as "primarily for personal, family or household purposes." Bloom v. I.C. System, Inc., C.A.9 (Or.) 1992, 972 F.2d 1067. Consumer Protection 10
Borrowers, whose bankruptcy petition characterized their loan as a "business" rather than a "consumer/non-business" loan, were not judicially estopped from contending that the loan was a consumer loan for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); none of the Ninth Circuit's Hamilton factors supported application of the doctrine, as borrowers' current contention that the loan was a consumer loan was not clearly inconsistent with their bankruptcy petition, which they amended so that it characterized the loan as a consumer loan and which indicated elsewhere that the loan was a consumer loan, there was no risk that court's acceptance of borrowers' current position would create a perception that borrowers misled either district court or bankruptcy court, and there was no suggestion that borrowers would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on defendant debt collection agency by contending that their home loan was a consumer loan. Bush v. Loanstar Mortgagee Services, L.L.C., N.D.Cal.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 1210. Estoppel 68(2)
Personal loan between friends which was used by borrower as venture capital investment was not loan "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes" and was thus not subject to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), regardless of intent of lender. Bloom v. I.C. System, Inc., D.Or.1990, 753 F.Supp. 314, affirmed 972 F.2d 1067. Consumer Protection 10
6A. ---- Law enforcement matters
Motor vehicle impoundment and towing fees arising out of action authorized by state law enforcement agency did not constitute "debt," within the meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); a debt under the FDCPA was required to arise from consensual transaction where parties negotiated or contracted for consumer-related goods or services, and impoundment was not consensual consumer transaction. Betts v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., W.D.Wash.2003, 245 F.Supp.2d 1130. Consumer Protection 10
7. ---- Housing assessments
Homeowners' obligations to municipalities for water and sewer charges were "debts" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), even though no extension of credit had occurred, and obligations retained that status after they were assigned. Pollice v. National Tax Funding, L.P., C.A.3 (Pa.) 2000, 225 F.3d 379. Consumer Protection 10
An assessment owed to a condominium association qualified as a "debt," within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), even though the assessment did not involve an extension of credit; debtor became obligated upon purchasing his condominium unit to pay any assessments pursuant to the governing documents of his association and state statute, such that assessment qualified as an obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a "transaction," and while the assessment was used to maintain and repair the common area, it nevertheless had a primarily personal, family, or household purpose. La**** v. Van Gemert, C.A.10 (Colo.) 1998, 146 F.3d 1205, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 511, 525 U.S. 1002, 142 L.Ed.2d 424. Consumer Protection 10
Past-due assessments owed by condominium owners and homeowners to respective homeowner associations qualified as obligations of consumer to pay money arising out of transaction, thereby satisfying transaction element of "debt" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), given that obligation to pay derived from purchase transaction itself, even though timing and amount of particular assessments was yet to be determined. Newman v. Boehm, Pearlstein & Bright, Ltd., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1997, 119 F.3d 477, rehearing denied. Consumer Protection 10
Delinquent water fees that law firm was attempting to collect on behalf of municipality for water service provided to consumers' home qualified as "debt," within meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), although law firm, in filing lien against property, was proceeding in rem rather than in personam. Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, E.D.Pa.2003, 274 F.Supp.2d 681. Consumer Protection 10
Homeowner's municipal water assessment constituted debt under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); although certain fees were fairly apportioned among all property owners and ran with the property, providing water service to citizens of municipality was pro tanto exchange. Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, E.D.Pa.2003, 262 F.Supp.2d 520. Consumer Protection 10
Maintenance assessments from recreational property memberships were "debts," subject to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), on basis that assessments were for personal or family purposes; interests that consumers bought in recreational vehicle parks were for personal or family purposes, consumers' maintenance assessments arose out of purchase of interest in parks, and assessments were used to maintain parks for benefit of parks. Fuller v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., M.D.Fla.2002, 192 F.Supp.2d 1361. Consumer Protection 10
Homeowner association fees for maintenance and improvement of common areas within housing development were service primarily for personal, family, and household purposes within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), even though many households used or benefited from common areas. Thies v. Law Offices of William A. Wyman, S.D.Cal.1997, 969 F.Supp. 604. Consumer Protection 10
Condominium fees are not "debts" for purposes of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, since they do not include extension of credit and operate to provide communal goods and services which only indirectly benefit payer. Riter v. Moss & Bloomberg, Ltd., N.D.Ill.1996, 932 F.Supp. 210, reversed 119 F.3d 477, rehearing denied. Consumer Protection 10
Assessment against homeowner by subdivision for maintaining private road did not arise out of transaction which was primarily for personal, family, or household purchases, and was not "debt," under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Nance v. Petty, Livingston, Dawson, & Devening, W.D.Va.1994, 881 F.Supp. 223. Consumer Protection 10
Debt arising out of transaction involving vacation time-share for debtor and her family was for personal or family purposes, within meaning of definition of "debt" in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and, therefore, debtor qualified as "consumer" under FDCPA. Herbert v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., D.Conn.1994, 863 F.Supp. 76. Consumer Protection 10
Obligations owed to city for water and sewer charges by individuals, corporations, and businesses who owned their property for business purposes did not qualify as debts under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, E.D.Pa.2003, 215 F.R.D. 495. Consumer Protection 10
8. ---- Agricultural loans
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. Consumer Protection 10
9. ---- Tax levy
Personal property taxes levied by town upon plaintiffs' automobiles were not "debts" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and therefore, debt collection service's efforts to collect those taxes from plaintiffs were not covered by Act; there was no "transaction," as contemplated by Act. Beggs v. Rossi, C.A.2 (Conn.) 1998, 145 F.3d 511. Consumer Protection 10
Per capita tax levied by a Pennsylvania taxing district was not a "debt" encompassed within the scope of this section. Staub v. Harris, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1980, 626 F.2d 275. Consumer Protection 10
Delinquent water fees that law firm was attempting to collect on behalf of municipality arose out of pro rata exchange, and were not in nature of tax that could be collected without regard to requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), though municipality apportioned fees among all property owners in municipality; the more water an individual resident of municipality used, the greater his/her water bill. Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, E.D.Pa.2003, 274 F.Supp.2d 681. Consumer Protection 10
Personal property taxes assessed on motor vehicles were not "debts," for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Beggs v. Rossi, D.Conn.1997, 994 F.Supp. 114, affirmed 145 F.3d 511. Consumer Protection 10
10. ---- Banks and banking
"ComputerGram" sent by creditor-hospital to debtor was not communication from debt collector and, thus, was not subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which does not apply to creditors who attempt to collect their own debts in their own name; although hospital used collection agency as mailing service, return address and telephone number indicated that communication was from hospital, and text thanked debtor for choosing hospital and invited him to telephone hospital regarding unpaid bill. Powell v. Computer Credit, Inc., S.D.Ohio 1997, 975 F.Supp. 1034, affirmed 1998 WL 773989. Consumer Protection 10
Sum allegedly owed to bank by bank customers was not "debt" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), absent any allegation that sum arose from any transaction with bank; bank merely requested customers return $18,000 mistakenly credited to their account. Arnold v. Truemper, N.D.Ill.1993, 833 F.Supp. 678. Consumer Protection 10
Where debtor's "debt" arose from several purchases of food paid by personal checks, collection bureau's activities concerning collection of debtor's outstanding dishonored checks involved collection of a "debt" under this subchapter, despite argument that dishonored checks represented debts separate and distinct from debt associated with debtor's consumer purchase of food. In re Scrimpsher, Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.1982, 17 B.R. 999. Consumer Protection 10
Bank engaged primarily in the business of lending money to individuals, rather than of collecting debts, was not subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Davis v. Dillard Nat. Bank, M.D.N.C.2003, 2003 WL 21297331, Unreported. Consumer Protection 10
11. ---- Civil damages
Customer's supposed liability under Ohio statute for civil damages arising out of his alleged theft or attempted theft of cigars was not "debt" incurred by "consumer" in transaction which was "primarily for personal, family or household purposes," within meaning of federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); accordingly, customer could not recover from merchant for failing to give notices required under the FDCPA in attempting to enforce its civil damages claim. Shorts v. Palmer, S.D.Ohio 1994, 155 F.R.D. 172. Consumer Protection 10
11A. ---- Theft
Claim arising out of alleged theft does not constitute a "debt" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); while thief undoubtedly has obligation to pay for goods or services he steals, the FDCPA limits its reach to those obligations to pay arising from consensual transactions, where parties negotiate or contract for consumer-related goods or services. Coretti v. Lefkowitz, D.Conn.1997, 965 F.Supp. 3. Consumer Protection 10
12. Debt collector--Generally
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
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) exclusion of officers or employees of government from definition of "debt collector" does not extend to those who are merely in contractual relationship with government. Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates, E.D.Pa.2003, 262 F.Supp.2d 520. Consumer Protection 10
Hospital, which sought to collect patient's debt, could not be a "bill collector," in context of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), where debt hospital sought to collect was owed to hospital, rather than owed to another. Bleich v. Revenue Maximization Group, Inc., E.D.N.Y.2002, 239 F.Supp.2d 262. Consumer Protection 10
Radiologist who signed physician's lien in attempt to collect debt from former clinic patient was not "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); radiologist was not in business of collecting debts, and in any event came within FDCPA exceptions for persons acting in capacity of officers or employees of creditors and for limited partners in limited partnerships collecting debts owed to partnerships. Kang v. Eisenstein, N.D.Ill.1997, 962 F.Supp. 112. Consumer Protection 10
Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, "debt collector" includes person in business, the principal purpose of which is collection of debts, person who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due another, and creditors who, in the process of collecting their own debts, use any names which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. Kempf v. Famous Barr Co., E.D.Mo.1988, 676 F.Supp. 937. Consumer Protection 10
"Debt collectors" covered by this section are those who regularly collect for others and not creditors of consumers even though debt is created between consumer and third person and subsequently assigned to a creditor such as a finance company if such assignment is made before default. Kizer v. Finance America Credit Corp., N.D.Miss.1978, 454 F.Supp. 937. Consumer Protection 10
Collection bureau's minimal conduct of beckoning debtor to send payment to food store creditor qualified it to be a "debt collector" under this subchapter because it used the mails in a business the principal purpose of which was the collection of debts or regularly collected or attempted to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. In re Scrimpsher, Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.1982, 17 B.R. 999. Consumer Protection 10
13. ---- Attorneys
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applied to lawyer regularly engaged in consumer debt-collection litigation on behalf of creditor client. Heintz v. Jenkins, U.S.Ill.1995, 115 S.Ct. 1489, 514 U.S. 291, 131 L.Ed.2d 395. Consumer Protection 10
Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), relevant time for determining character of debt was when debt arose, and therefore FDCPA applied to law firms' attempts to collect mortgage debt for house in which mortgagor initially resided, even though, at time debt collection efforts began, mortgagor was renting premises to strangers and thus was making business use of property. Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, and Clark, L.L.C., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2000, 214 F.3d 872, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Consumer Protection 10
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
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) exception for a "person while serving or attempting to serve legal process" in connection with judicial enforcement of a debt did not exempt law firm from FDCPA, with respect to three-day rent demand notice sent on landlord's behalf, as required by New York law as condition precedent to summary eviction proceeding, and attorneys thus qualified as "debt collectors" for FDCPA purposes. Romea v. Heiberger & Associates, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1998, 163 F.3d 111. Consumer Protection 10
Attorneys engaged in litigation were "debt collectors" subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) where they filed lawsuits on behalf of client to collect debts allegedly owed by consumers. Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1996, 76 F.3d 103. Consumer Protection 10
If allegation of complaint that attorney and law firm "were regularly engaged for profit in collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers" were true, attorney and law firm fell within statutory definition of "debt collector" in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Jenkins v. Heintz, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1994, 25 F.3d 536, certiorari granted 115 S.Ct. 416, 513 U.S. 959, 130 L.Ed.2d 332, affirmed 115 S.Ct. 1489, 514 U.S. 291, 131 L.Ed.2d 395, on remand 1996 WL 535167. Consumer Protection 10
Attorney whose practice was at least 80% in area of debt collection fell within definition of "debt collector" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and fact that attorney's filing of application for writ of garnishment was pure legal action did not alter this conclusion because attorney exemption was no longer part of FDCPA. Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1994, 15 F.3d 1507. Consumer Protection 10
Attorney retained by banks to represent bank card divisions in lawsuits based on delinquent credit card accounts was "debt collector" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, despite contention that attorney performed only legal work, since at least 70% of attorney's legal fees were generated from collection of debts, "principal purpose" of work was collection of debt, and filing of warrants constituted "indirect" means of debt collection. Scott v. Jones, C.A.4 (Va.) 1992, 964 F.2d 314. Consumer Protection 10
Attorney who regularly engaged in debt collection activities on behalf of clients was "debt collector" subject to requirements of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; attorney was not mere agent of creditor where collection letters attorney sent to debtors unequivocally stated that monies were to be sent to him directly. Crossley v. Lieberman, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1989, 868 F.2d 566. Consumer Protection 10
Investigation by Federal Trade Commission into attorney's practice, most of which was devoted to collecting debts, was not outside its authority under this subchapter despite exclusion of "any attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client" from statutory definition of "debt collectors." F. T. C. v. Shaffner, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1980, 626 F.2d 32. Trade Regulation 748.1
Ex-husband's attorney and his law firm were not "debt collectors," and thus were not subject to requirements of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in connection with their attempts to collect from ex-wife sums paid by ex- husband to release lien on marital residence, despite ex-wife's contention that firm under-reported its debt collection activities, where firm represented that only 4.57% of firm's work involved consumer debt collection activities, and that it had never represented commercial debt collector in connection with debt collection practices, and ex-wife presented no contrary evidence. Camara v. Fleury, D.Mass.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 90. Consumer Protection 10
Law firm engaged by armored car business to assist in the claims process and defend its client on clinic's claim to recover lost deposit bag containing checks tendered in payment of medical services fell within Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) exception to the definition of a "debt collector;" although firm obtained an interest in the makers' obligations by pursuing the collection of the makers' alleged obligations in order to mitigate its client's damages, the debts were not in default at the time they were obtained by the firm since, under Kansas law, once the checks were tendered, the makers' obligations were suspended. Kvassay v. Hasty, D.Kan.2002, 236 F.Supp.2d 1240. Consumer Protection 10
Law firm which issued 145 three-day notices to a tenant over a one-year period was not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); the notices, which were required under New York law for landlord to bring a summary proceeding to take possession of property on the basis of a tenant's failure to pay rent, were the only evidence of debt collection by the firm, and they generated only $5,000 in revenue, amounting to approximately . 05% of the firm's revenue over that period. Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yuzek, Gainen, Carroll & Bertolotti, S.D.N.Y.2001, 155 F.Supp.2d 60. Consumer Protection 10
Attorney for law firm which represented collection agency was "debt collector" and, thus, could be held personally liable under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), even though law firm was limited liability company, where attorney was firm's sole attorney, developed debt collection practices, was author of generic collection letters utilized by firm and supervised all of firm's collection activities. Ditty v. CheckRite, Ltd., Inc., D.Utah 1997, 973 F.Supp. 1320. Consumer Protection 35
Attorney whose shared office and telephone system with debt collection agency, and who authorized agency to send dunning letter to debtor, was not liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for agency employees' conversations with debtor's wife, given complete lack of evidence that attorney participated in, or even sanctioned, any communication with wife. Bitah v. Global Collection Services, Inc., D.N.M.1997, 968 F.Supp. 618. Consumer Protection 10
Law firm that was hired by mortgagee to collect note and mortgage debt through correspondence or legal proceedings was "debt collector" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), where law firm sent letter advising mortgagors of payoff figure and reinstatement figure for mortgage and directed mortgagors to pay law firm, not creditor. Sandlin v. Shapiro & Fishman, M.D.Fla.1996, 919 F.Supp. 1564. Consumer Protection 10
Attorneys retained by debt collection agency to collect delinquent debts qualified as "debt collectors" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) notwithstanding that, in threatening legal action unless delinquent checks were paid, attorneys were acting in their professional capacity as attorneys. Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc., E.D.Cal.1995, 912 F.Supp. 1354. Consumer Protection 10
"Debt collectors" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) include attorneys whose principal business is debt collection or who regularly collect debts of another. Blakemore v. Pekay, N.D.Ill.1995, 895 F.Supp. 972. Consumer Protection 10
Law firm and its partner were not "debt collectors," under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), where debt collecting cases made up only .61 percent of partner's practice and only 1.07 percent of firm's cases over 18-month period. Nance v. Petty, Livingston, Dawson, & Devening, W.D.Va.1994, 881 F.Supp. 223. Consumer Protection 10
Attorney's uncorroborated denial of other debt collection activity did not warrant dismissal of debtor's complaint for violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on claim that attorney was not "debt collector." Sluys v. Hand, S.D.N.Y.1993, 831 F.Supp. 321. Consumer Protection 10
Attorneys who were representing creditor in connection with debt collection efforts, but who did not send demand letter to debtors, and merely accommodated debtors by providing information they requested regarding reinstatement of mortgage to avoid foreclosure, did not act as "debt collectors" subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Williams v. Trott, E.D.Mich.1993, 822 F.Supp. 1266. Consumer Protection 10
Attorney who regularly filed legal actions for purpose of collecting debts on behalf of client was not "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Green v. Hocking, E.D.Mich.1992, 792 F.Supp. 1064, affirmed 9 F.3d 18. Consumer Protection 10
Law firm was a person who "regularly" collected debts for purposes of Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, even though firm's collection business was less than 4% of its total business; law firm had ongoing relationship with corporate client with presumably many overdue accounts on its books. Stojanovski v. Strobl and Manoogian, P.C., E.D.Mich.1992, 783 F.Supp. 319. Consumer Protection 10
Attorney regularly collected debts and was "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, even though debt collection did not form principal part of his practice; attorney filed 144 small claims suits in collection matters in 1986 and 1987 alone, collection letter in question had been used 125 to 150 times in 14 months, and more than 60% of attorney's work for credit union involved collection matters. Cacace v. Lucas, D.Conn.1990, 775 F.Supp. 502. Consumer Protection 10
In-house attorney's use of word processor form to draft letter to consumer buyer did not establish that attorney regularly collected or attempted to collect seller's debts and that attorney was debt collector; nothing indicated frequency with which form letter with same letterhead was used as basis for attempting to collect debts on behalf of seller. Dorsey v. Morgan, D.Md.1991, 760 F.Supp. 509. Consumer Protection 10
A law firm could not be deemed to be a "debt collector," as defined by Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, with respect to its representation of a surety in actions brought by surety to compel partnership investors, who were in default on promissory notes, to comply with indemnification agreements; thus, Act's venue provisions were inapplicable. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Keating, S.D.N.Y.1990, 753 F.Supp. 1137. Consumer Protection 10
Law firm that engaged in activities of purely legal nature in seeking reimbursement for guarantor of notes executed by investor in tax-shelter limited partnership was not a "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Hartel, S.D.N.Y.1990, 741 F.Supp. 1139. Consumer Protection 10
Attorney did not regularly collect or attempt to collect debts of another and, therefore, was not "debt collector" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; attorney averaged less than two collection matters per year, and debt collection comprised less than one percent of his practice. Mertes v. Devitt, W.D.Wis.1990, 734 F.Supp. 872. Consumer Protection 10
Letter sent in attempt to collect debt is exempt from Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as letter by attorney collecting debt on behalf of client, and complies with canons of ethics, where matter was referred to attorney and attorney was authorized to represent individual debtor, not collection agency, with respect to each matter. U.S. v. Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., N.D.Tex.1986, 667 F.Supp. 370, affirmed as modified on other grounds 823 F.2d 880. Attorney And Client 32(7); Consumer Protection 10
Attorney alleged to have filed complaint and received payments which plaintiff made under judgment was within exception granted by this section, where attorney was not present in closed room, or even in district judge's office in which plaintiff alleged he was threatened and coerced into signing agreement admitting liability and agreeing to pay debt in full, and nothing was alleged in complaint which would link attorney with any alleged violations of plaintiff's rights. Horne v. Farrell, M.D.Pa.1983, 560 F.Supp. 219. Consumer Protection 10
Commission did not exceed authority by issuing civil investigative demand requiring law firm to provide certain information about its debt collection activities under this subchapter to determine whether law firm was acting "as an attorney" within meaning of exemption in subsec. (6) (F) of this section for attorneys collecting debt as an attorney on behalf of and in name of client where, while exclusion was not a narrow one, Congress did not tend to vest every attorney with right to be free from investigation and Congress did not intend to shield one debt collection business from investigation simply because it was owned by attorney. XYZ Law Firm v. F. T. C., N.D.Ga.1981, 525 F.Supp. 1235. Trade Regulation 752
No liability could be imposed under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) upon law firm which had no involvement in alleged debt collection activity, but which merely appeared in defense of parties accused of violating the FDCPA. In re Cooper, Bkrtcy.N.D.Fla.2000, 253 B.R. 286. Consumer Protection 10
Creditor's counsel was "debt collector," within meaning of federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, though he had represented debtors as well as creditors in the past, where he had represented creditor in issue for ten years and was counsel for other loan companies and collection agencies. In re Littles, Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1988, 90 B.R. 669, affirmed as modified on other grounds 90 B.R. 682, affirmed 868 F.2d 566, affirmed as modified on other grounds 90 B.R. 700. Consumer Protection 10
"Debt collectors," for purposes of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, includes attorneys whose practices are limited to purely legal matters. Shapiro and Meinhold v. Zartman, Colo.1992, 823 P.2d 120. Consumer Protection 10
If attorneys regularly engaged in debt collection activities, including foreclosures, they were "debt collectors" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and were subject to its provisions. Zartman v. Shapiro and Meinhold, Colo.App.1990, 811 P.2d 409, certiorari granted, affirmed 823 P.2d 120. Consumer Protection 10
14. ---- Collection and servicing agencies
Prior default status of debt, as allegedly established by letter sent by initial debt collection agency to debtor, declaring that debt was in default, could not be altered by creditor's subsequent agreement with new collection agency, stating that agency would act only as debt servicer to collect on debts not in default, and thus Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) would apply to correspondence sent by new collection agency to debtor, even if new agency was unaware of prior declaration of default, and sincerely believed that it was servicing a debt not in default. Alibrandi v. Financial Outsourcing Services, Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2003, 333 F.3d 82. Consumer Protection 10
Largest shareholder and president of collection agency was not himself a "debt collector" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), regardless of whether he exercised extensive control over agency. Pettit v. Retrieval Masters Creditor Bureau, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2000, 211 F.3d 1057, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Consumer Protection 10
Neither bona fide mortgage servicing company nor its assignee on promissory note for home were debt collectors within meaning of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, where mortgage servicing company sold the loan two months before purchasers were in default, and, after servicing company sold the loan, it continued to service the loan for its assignee. Perry v. Stewart Title Co., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1985, 756 F.2d 1197, rehearing granted in part 761 F.2d 237. Consumer Protection 10
Printing and mailing service that debt collection agency used to mail collection letter to debtor was not a "debt collector," within meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), though advertisements which service mailed to debt collection agencies and other businesses invited these businesses to join in "strategic partnership" with service, and though service's name appeared in upper righthand corner of collection letter; service did not solicit business only from collection agencies, did not write or edit debt collection agency's letters except to the extent it engaged in simple proofreading, was not identified in letter as party seeking to collect debt or as party to whom debtor could respond, and was paid flat rate by collection agency without regard to collection letter's success. Trull v. Lason Systems, Inc., N.D.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 600. Consumer Protection 10
Illinois long-arm statute covered nonresident president and vice president of California debt collection agency in suit brought by consumers alleging violations of federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based upon acts of president and vice president in authorizing and directing use of misleading agency name in state of Illinois. Brujis v. Shaw, N.D.Ill.1995, 876 F.Supp. 975. Federal Courts 76.20
President and manager of debt collection agency were each "debt collector" who could thus be held jointly and severally liable under Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); each employee was himself "debt collector" within statutory definition, and each was affirmative actor and tort-feasor, who actually made actionable phone calls. Teng v. Metropolitan Retail Recovery Inc., E.D.N.Y.1994, 851 F.Supp. 61. Consumer Protection 35
Sole general partner of partnership which was engaged primarily in business of providing collection services for partnership and others was "debt collector" for purposes of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Cirkot v. Diversified Financial Systems, Inc., D.Conn.1993, 839 F.Supp. 941. Consumer Protection 10
Corporation formed for sole purpose of collecting on bankrupt company's accounts receivable was "debt collector," within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, though it was collecting debts for itself, in that it regularly collected debts and debt collection was its principal purpose; moreover, debts collected were already in default when they were assigned to corporation and thus corporation fell within assignee exception to definition of creditor. Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., M.D.Ala.1987, 668 F.Supp. 1480. Consumer Protection 10
Conduct of collection agency after supposed referral of matter to attorney, as distinguished from conduct of attorney, is not exempt from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and thus, if agency threatens suit after attorney letter has been sent, there is violation. U.S. v. Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., N.D.Tex.1986, 667 F.Supp. 370, affirmed as modified on other grounds 823 F.2d 880. Consumer Protection 10
This subchapter applies only to consumer collection agencies as opposed to commercial collection agencies, and therefore had no application to suit by commercial collection agency challenging constitutionality of I.C. §§ 26-2222 et seq.; rather, analysis of challenged legislation would proceed on basis that Congress had not addressed question of commercial collection agencies. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. McEldowney, D.C.Idaho 1983, 564 F.Supp. 257. Consumer Protection 10
Student loan servicing company to which loans were transferred for servicing prior to student borrower's default did not qualify as "debt collector," within meaning of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Fischer v. UNIPAC Service Corp., Iowa 1994, 519 N.W.2d 793. Consumer Protection 10
14A. ---- Creditors
Pursuant to false name provision of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which treated creditor as "debt collector" when creditor used another name in its debt collection efforts to suggest third person's involvement in such efforts, creditor qualified as "debt collector" for purposes of liability under FDCPA provisions prohibiting debt collectors from making false representation or implication that communication was from attorney and prohibiting use of false representation or deceptive means to collect debt when attorney who sent debt collection letters on creditor's behalf was not genuinely involved in effort to collect creditor's debts and letters sent to creditor's debtors were not truly "from" attorney. Nielsen v. ****erson, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2002, 307 F.3d 623. Consumer Protection 10
Exemption under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for assignees of debts not in default at time of assignment did not apply to assignee of mortgagee which allegedly sent mortgagors a notice incorrectly asserting that they were in default on their mortgage loan, but failing to advise them of their right under the FDCPA to contest the default, where assignee allegedly acquired debt as a debt in default and the assignee's collection attempts were based on that incorrect understanding. Schlosser v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2003, 323 F.3d 534, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Consumer Protection 10
Check authorization service which reimbursed its merchants for dishonored checks that it had authorized was not acting as a "creditor" excluded from requirements of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it attempted to collect on dishonored items on its own behalf; service was acting as third party collecting debts that were originally owed to its merchants, and upon which it received an assignment if debt was in default. Winterstein v. CrossCheck, Inc., N.D.Ill.2001, 149 F.Supp.2d 466. Consumer Protection 10
Creditor-correspondence school was not "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) merely because it retained its corporate affiliate to collect its debt from student; school and affiliate were distinct entities, and nowhere in complaint did student allege that they were, in reality, single economic entity or that school controlled affiliate's debt collection process. Harrison v. NBD Inc., E.D.N.Y.1997, 968 F.Supp. 837. Consumer Protection 10
15. ---- Banks and banking
Bank was not "debt collector" for purpose of customer's claim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for alleged harassment; although bank employed third party or subsidiary on its behalf to collect on debt, customer alleged that bank was collecting debt owed directly to it and bank's primary purpose was to loan money to consumers, not collection of outstanding debts. Thomasson v. Bank One, Louisiana, N.A., E.D.La.2001, 137 F.Supp.2d 721. Consumer Protection 10
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
Bank was not rendered "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by bank's contacting police to investigate possible theft by bank customers; police were not in business with principal purpose of collecting debt, police did not regularly collect debts, and bank did not contact police in order for police to collect debt. Arnold v. Truemper, N.D.Ill.1993, 833 F.Supp. 678. Consumer Protection 10
Computerized check authorization and purchase service, which regularly attempted to collect on dishonored checks purchased from its subscribers, was a "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., D.Del.1990, 736 F.Supp. 1289. Consumer Protection 10
Neither bank that issued credit card nor related service corporation that attempted to collect debt owed on credit card was "debt collector" subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and, therefore, holders of credit card had no claim under Act for alleged improprieties in service corporation's collection attempts. Meads v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., S.D.Ga.1988, 686 F.Supp. 330. Consumer Protection 10
In debiting its customer's account, upon learning that one of checks deposited by customer into account contained unauthorized indorsement, brokerage firm was merely attempting to protect itself by authorizing its depositary to return funds to owner of check and was not attempting to collect any consumer debt, for purposes of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDPCA). In re Chapman, Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.2001, 265 B.R. 796, reconsideration denied 269 B.R. 201, affirmed 2002 WL 818300, appeal dismissed 50 Fed.Appx. 322, 2002 WL 31497298. Consumer Protection 10
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is meant to reach only those who regularly collect debts for others and not creditors collecting on their own, and thus, did not apply to bank which attempted to collect debt owed itself. Mendez v. Apple Bank for Sav., N.Y.City Civ.Ct.1989, 541 N.Y.S.2d 920, 143 Misc.2d 915. Consumer Protection 10
Bank's release of information concerning debtor to another bank did not violate federal Privacy Act, since bank was neither "agency" within meaning of Act nor "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Baldwin v. First Nat. Bank of Black Hills, S.D.1985, 362 N.W.2d 85. Banks And Banking 151
16. ---- Financing companies
Company to which car dealership had assigned its consumers' installment sales contracts for purchase of automobiles was not "debt collector" subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); even if car dealership rather than assignee was consumers' creditor, FDCPA's definition of debt collector specifically excluded persons collecting debt owed to another to the extent that the activity concerned debt that was not in default at time it was obtained by such person, and assignee had been assigned debts before consumers had defaulted. Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1996, 76 F.3d 103. Consumer Protection 10
Automobile finance company was not subject to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) with respect to its direct attempts to insure that debtors made payments which were overdue on loan that company had made to them. James v. Ford Motor Credit Co., D.Minn.1994, 842 F.Supp. 1202, affirmed 47 F.3d 961. Consumer Protection 10
Finance company, which did not collect or attempt to collect debts owed to another but only made collections by its in-house employees under its own name, was not a "debt collector" within meaning of this section and its actions did not constitute violations of the subchapter to give rise to federal question. Kizer v. Finance America Credit Corp., N.D.Miss.1978, 454 F.Supp. 937. Consumer Protection 10
Credit company to which automobile installment purchase agreement was assigned for debt servicing qualified as "debt collector," within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Foster v. Ford Motor Credit Co., S.C.1990, 395 S.E.2d 440, 302 S.C. 450. Consumer Protection 10
16A. ---- Bail bondsmen
Bail bondsman played significant role in originating bail bond transaction, including indemnification agreement and contingent note and mortgage executed by mother seeking bond for incarcerated daughter, and therefore its actions to collect on note were covered by originator exception to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Buckman v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, C.A.11 (Fla.) 1997, 115 F.3d 892. Consumer Protection 10
17. ---- Mortgagees
Mortgage company was not "debt collector," within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and thus, mortgagors could not recover against mortgage company for violations of FDCPA for phone call by company's employee to mortgagors after their attorney notified company to deal with him and not mortgagors directly, where company's principal business purpose was to make and service consumer loans, company did not collect any debts owed to any entity other than itself, and branch manager for mortgage company was acting as its employee and on its behalf when he telephoned mortgagors about their loan. Oldroyd v. Associates Consumer Discount Company/PA, E.D.Pa.1994, 863 F.Supp. 237.
18. ---- Insurers
Insurers and insurance brokers involved in underwriting losses arising from lost deposit bag containing checks tendered in payment of medical services were not "debt collectors" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) with respect to attempts to have makers replace the lost or stolen checks. Stark v. Hasty, D.Kan.2002, 236 F.Supp.2d 1214.
Insurer did not qualify as "debt collector" under provision of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, defining debt collector as any person operating business in interstate commerce "principal purpose of which" is collection of debts, merely because its subrogation department engaged in collection of debts; department of major corporation could not be viewed as though it were separate and apart from corporation itself. Vasquez v. Allstate Ins. Co., N.D.Ill.1996, 937 F.Supp. 773. Consumer Protection 10
Protections of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692- 1692o ] did not apply to action by debtors against insurer alleging that loan and security agreements with insurer were invalid or rescindable, where no involvement by a "debt collector" was alleged. Jonak v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.Neb.1985, 629 F.Supp. 90.
19. ---- Guaranty agencies
Guaranty agency that acquired debtor's student loan after default in order to pursue its collection was subject to Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., C.A.9 (Or.) 1996, 94 F.3d 1260, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 2484, 521 U.S. 1106, 138 L.Ed.2d 992, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 2496, 521 U.S. 1111, 138 L.Ed.2d 1003. Consumer Protection 5; Consumer Protection 10
Guaranty agency that acquired debtor's student loan after default in order to pursue its collection was not government actor exempt from Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); agency was private, nonprofit organization with government contract, not government agency or employee. Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., C.A.9 (Or.) 1996, 94 F.3d 1260, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 2484, 521 U.S. 1106, 138 L.Ed.2d 992, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 2496, 521 U.S. 1111, 138 L.Ed.2d 1003. Consumer Protection 5; Consumer Protection 10
Private, not-for-profit corporation which operated as guarantee agency participating in a federal guaranteed student loan program was not a "debt collector" under federal Debt Collection Practices Act when it generated and sent notices to student borrower concerning the involuntary interception and application of his federal income tax refund towards repayment of his federally guaranteed student loan. Games v. Cavazos, D.Del.1990, 737 F.Supp. 1368. Consumer Protection 10
Private, nonprofit guaranty agency that was established pursuant to the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), to encourage lenders to make loans available to student-borrowers by guarantying their debts, was acting incident to its fiduciary obligations to government in attempting to collect on defaulted student loan, regardless of whether guaranty agency had yet collected any funds from borrower that it was required to hold for benefit of federal government; accordingly, guaranty agency, as fiduciary to Department of Education (DOE), was not subject to restrictions of Federal Debt Collection and Practices Act (FDCPA). Consumer Credit Protection Act, §§ 802 et seq., as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692 et seq.; Higher Education Act of 1965, §§§§ 421-501, as amended, 20 U.S.C.A. §§§§ 1071-1099. Montgomery v. Educational Credit Management Corp., D.Minn.1999, 238 B.R. 806. Consumer Protection 10
20. ---- Corporate entities
Pursuant to exception for debt collection efforts of corporate affiliates, corporation whose principal business was not debt collection and which only collected debts for affiliated or related entities was not "debt collector" for purposes of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Aubert v. American General Finance, Inc., C.A.7 (Wis.) 1998, 137 F.3d 976. Consumer Protection 10
Defendant not-for-profit corporation fell within the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA's) "affiliate exemption" and, thus, did not have to abide by the statute's requirements in its efforts to collect rent arrears from hotel tenants, where defendant owned all shares of the general partner of the New York limited partnership that owned hotel, so that defendant exerted corporate control over hotel, defendant managed only the hotel and not any other hotel or residence, and debt collection was not "the" principal business of defendant, which also obtained charitable grants and, in the hotel itself, was responsible for residence relations, maintenance, security, providing job training and development to residents, and coordinating social events and community services, as well as billing residents and collecting rents. Backuswalcott v. Common Ground Community HDFC, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2000, 104 F.Supp.2d 363. Consumer Protection 10
Property management company which was hired by townhome community owners' association to manage community did not operate business with principal purpose of collection of debts, and thus was not a "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); management company performed an number of services unrelated to collecting debts, and less than three percent of its total operations were devoted to the collection of assessments and past due accounts. Alexander v. Omega Management, Inc., D.Minn.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1052. Consumer Protection 10
Corporate affiliate of creditor fell within in-house exemption to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), where affiliate did not collect debts for unaffiliated entities and affiliate's principal business was not collection of debts. Pavone v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., S.D.Cal.1997, 60 F.Supp.2d 1040, affirmed 172 F.3d 876. Consumer Protection 10
Company hired to print and mail dunning letters for debt collection agency was not "debt collector" within meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); company did not collect money from debtors, company's own name and address were not included in letters, company did not provide follow-up collection services such as telephoning debtors, company was paid on per-copy basis and its fees were not contingent on amount of money its clients actually collected, and company had no relationship with debtors' creditors, even though significant portion of company's business was devoted to generating and mailing debt collection letters. Laubach v. Arrow Service Bureau, Inc., N.D.Ill.1997, 987 F.Supp. 625. Consumer Protection 10
Parent corporations were "debt collectors" under par. (6) of this section and were thus liable for all violations of this subchapter committed by local subsidiaries, even though only the local companies performed the sort of pressure tactics that are commonly thought of as debt collection activity, where all the companies constituted a single entity engaged in debt collection services, parent companies directed debtor accounts to the local agencies for collection services and parent companies provided other essential support services. U.S. v. ACB Sales & Service, Inc., D.C.Ariz.1984, 590 F.Supp. 561. Consumer Protection 35
In view of fact that corporation could act only through its debt collection agents, such corporation, which exercised control over the agents despite fact that agreement referred to them as "independent contractors," could be held liable for agents' violations of this subchapter. West v. Costen, W.D.Va.1983, 558 F.Supp. 564. Corporations 423
Creditor's subsidiary was not "debt collector" for purposes of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; in its capacity as debt collector, subsidiary collected debts only for its corporate affiliate and subsidiary's principal business was not collection of debts. Phillips v. Periodical Publishers' Service Bureau, Inc., S.C.1989, 388 S.E.2d 787, 300 S.C. 444. Consumer Protection 10
21. ---- Employees
Allegation of creditor's employee that she was known by debtors to be employee of creditor was sufficient to state affirmative defense for purposes of debtor's motion to strike under section of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act exempting officer or employee of creditor from liability, although debtor had received debt notices appearing to come from third parties, and exemption did not apply to creditors that use name other than their own. Hardin v. Folger, W.D.N.Y.1988, 704 F.Supp. 355. Federal Civil Procedure 1132
Complaint filed by writers of insufficient funds checks failed to state claim against administrator of county check clearing house under this subchapter, since administrator was not included as a debt collector under the definitions of this section and was excluded because he was admittedly an officer or employee of state. Gary v. Spires, D.C.S.C.1979, 473 F.Supp. 878. Consumer Protection 38
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not prohibit employee of mirror installation company from calling wife of actual debtor to recover debts due to installation company; Act applied to debts due to third-party creditors. Sterling Mirror of Maryland, Inc. v. Gordon, D.C.1993, 619 A.2d 64. Consumer Protection 10
22. ---- Media
Magazine that contracted with agency for collection of debt allegedly owed by consumer was not "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Howe v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1988, 686 F.Supp. 461. Consumer Protection 10
Sender of microwave television signals, which sent letters, first through its attorney, then through its general manager, directly attempting to collect money allegedly owed to it by individuals who allegedly received the microwave signals illegally without paying, was not a "debt collector" within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 802 et seq., as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 et seq., and thus was not subject to the Act. Fuhrman v. California Satellite Systems, Cal.App. 3 Dist.1986, 231 Cal.Rptr. 113, 179 Cal.App.3d 408, review denied. Consumer Protection 10
23. ---- Judicial entities
Debt arising from forfeiture on criminal bail bond posted by bonding company and insured by insurer was "incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation," and thus, bonding company was not "debt collector," to whom provisions of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applied; debt, although owed to insurer, was originated by bonding company and Florida law provided that bail bondsman receives collateral security in his fiduciary capacity. Buckman v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, S.D.Fla.1996, 924 F.Supp. 1156, affirmed 115 F.3d 892. Consumer Protection 10
Constable alleged to have threatened and coerced plaintiff into signing agreement admitting liability and agreeing to pay debt in full did not fit within definition of debt collector under this section, since constable's principal business purpose was not collection of debts, alleged actions of constable appeared to be outside of his ordinary activities as constable even if that position could qualify as business within meaning of this section, and constable was not a creditor. Horne v. Farrell, M.D.Pa.1983, 560 F.Supp. 219. Consumer Protection 10
Activities of the Landlord and Tenant Officer of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, acting on behalf of landlords, in sending notices of lease terminations to tenants who allegedly were delinquent in rental payments, charging tenants fees for that service, collecting rental payments for landlord, and sending, after notices failed to generate payment of delinquent rent, letters restating the amount of rent due, noting date upon which Officer was instructed to initiate eviction proceedings, and providing telephone number through which any questions concerning matter could be resolved, did not violate this subchapter as those activities were authorized by the President Judge of Municipal Court and as such did constitute an official action and were thus exempt from this subchapter. Heredia v. Green, E.D.Pa.1980, 504 F.Supp. 896, affirmed 667 F.2d 392. Consumer Protection 10
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) did not apply to judgment creditor who was attempting to determine extent of debtors' assets where creditor's principal business was not debt collection, and, thus, FDCPA could not form basis of conviction for harassment. State v. Long, N.J.Super.L.1993, 630 A.2d 430, 266 N.J.Super. 716. Extortion And Threats 25.1
23A. ---- Repossessors
Company in business of repossessing vehicles did not constitute "debt collector" within meaning of Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida consumer collection practices statute, in absence of any evidence that company contacted debtors by any means or that debt was assigned to company. Seibel v. Society Lease, Inc., M.D.Fla.1997, 969 F.Supp. 713. Consumer Protection 10
23B. ---- Service providers
Local telephone service provider was not "debt collector" for purposes of customer's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim based on local provider's efforts to collect telephone charges incurred through use of information or long-distance providers, given that, pursuant to contracts with information and long-distance providers, local provider acquired debts resulting from calls using such services when calls were placed and thus before debts were in default. Whitaker v. Ameritech Corp., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1997, 129 F.3d 952, rehearing denied. Consumer Protection 10
24. Official duties
"Government actor" exemption to Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies only to individual government official or employee who collects debts as part of government employment responsibilities. Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., C.A.9 (Or.) 1996, 94 F.3d 1260, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 2484, 521 U.S. 1106, 138 L.Ed.2d 992, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 2496, 521 U.S. 1111, 138 L.Ed.2d 1003. Consumer Protection 5; Consumer Protection 10
Activities of landlord and tenant officer of the Philadelphia municipal court in serving upon tenants, at request of landlord, copies of document headed "Municipal Court Notice of Termination of Lease," which demanded full payment of all fees, late charges, and unpaid rent within five days, stating that eviction proceedings would be instituted if payment was not received within stated time, and in charging tenants allegedly "unauthorized" fees for such service constituted official activities and were thus excluded from proscriptions of this subchapter. Heredia v. Green, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1981, 667 F.2d 392. Consumer Protection 10
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not apply to IRS employees for whom collection activities are part of their jobs, except to extent provided by Internal Revenue Code. Hyler v. C.I.R., U.S.Tax Ct.2002, 2002 WL 31890047, Unreported. Consumer Protection 10
25. Transactions
Motorist failing to pay for parking engaged in "transaction" with parking lot owner, and incurred "debt," by parking vehicle in lot, triggering federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibition on collection of any amount not authorized by contract or law, despite claim by collective agency seeking to impose violation fee for untimely payment of parking fees that failure to pay was theft of services rather than breach of contract. Hansen v. Ticket Track, Inc., W.D.Wash.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 1196. Consumer Protection 10
Debtors' obligation to pay dues for services of homeowners association based on covenant running with their property constituted "transaction" within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Thies v. Law Offices of William A. Wyman, S.D.Cal.1997, 969 F.Supp. 604. Consumer Protection 10
26. Personal, family or household purposes
Motorists parking vehicle in parking lot incurred debt for "personal, family or household purposes," allowing for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) coverage of violation fee imposed for untimely payment of parking charges, despite claim motorists might have been parking in order to carry out business errand. Hansen v. Ticket Track, Inc., W.D.Wash.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 1196. Consumer Protection 10
