Consumer complaint received 2021-12-14
Company: Butler, Butler & Rowse-Oberle, P.L.L.C.
State: MI
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Auto debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Threatened to turn you in to immigration or deport you

Complaint:
Prior CFPB Complaint : # XXXX Debtor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Creditor : XXXX XXXX, a living, natural XXXX, and Secured Party/Creditor-XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX There are no judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789. Judges do no enforce statutes and codes. Executive Administrators enforce statutes and codes. 
( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  US 428, 1 STAT. 138-178 In XXXX XXXX XXXX , the Supreme Court expanded the FDCPAs application from only debt collectors to include lawyers who regularly engage in debt collection. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX have side-stepped regulations imposed by the FDCPA by having their attorneys Butler, Rowse, Oberele PLC act in their stead. [ XXXX XXXX, The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act After XXXX XXXX XXXX : A Practical Examination of the End of the Exemption, 46 EMORY L.J. 389, 390 XXXX XXXX  ). Congress originally passed the FDCPA with an exemption for attorneys operating as or for debt collectors. Id. 

However in XXXX Congress repealed that exemption, theoretically bringing [ attorneys ] within the purview of the Act. Id. at 391 ]. In response, the Supreme Court decided to definitively extend the application of the FDCPA to include both debt collectors and attorneys representing or acting as debt collectors. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Providing consumers with a cause of action under Section 1692e for misrepresentations made to a court promotes these interests by enabling consumers to protect their own rights without having to depend on external remedies such as enforcement by the CFPB or court sanctions. Under the FDCPA, the term debt collector refers to any person who regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed to another or who uses a different name when collecting his own debts. 

The FDCPA states that Consumers deserve to be treated with care and respect and should not be taken advantage of through unfair debt collection practices such as harassment, embarrassment, or misrepresentation. The purpose of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by many debt collectors in light of abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. [ 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( XXXX  ). ] The FDCPA was enacted in order to allow consumers to enforce violations of the Act instead of having to rely on a [ Government and/or Agency ] to intervene on the consumers behalf. [ 15 U.S.C. 1692k ]. 

Congress decided to provide individual citizens with a private cause of action to protect their own rights against unfair debt collection practices. [ 15 U.S.C. 1692k ]. One goal was to protect consumers by preventing debt collectors from abusing the attorney exception by using hired attorneys to commit FDCPA violations on the debt collectors behalf. To better protect Consumers, Section 1692e give Consumers a private cause of action against debt collectors for misstatements made in pleadings and other documents submitted to a court of law. 

The FDCPA covers Attorneys who also regularly engage in debt collection because of their important role in the collection of a debt, [ XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291, 299 XXXX XXXX XXXX ], then Section 1692e also apply when a misrepresentation is made to a party who plays a significant role in the collection of a debt. Section 1692e states that [ a ] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.. Congress enacted the FDCPA with the expectation that consumers, as very interested parties, would privately enforce violations of the FDCPA. [ S. REP. NO. 95-382, at 5 ( XXXX ), reprinted in XXXX U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. ] While the CFPB is permitted to take regulatory action, [ p5 U.S.C. 1692l, amended by Dodd-Frank Act 1089, 124 Stat. at 2092 ( codified at various subsections of 15 U.S.C. 1692l ) ] In XXXX, the Supreme Court extended the application of the FDCPA to include attorneys who regularly represent debt collectors or who themselves regularly engage in debt collection practices. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291, 299 ( XXXX ) ]. 

Accordingly, attorneys who regularly try to collect consumer debts, usually on behalf of a debt collector, are also subject to the FDCPA as debt collectors. [ ( noting that even litigating... seems simply one way of collecting a debt ). Thus, the FDCPA and Section 1692e make both debt collectors and their attorneys potentially liable for violations. FDCPA and Section 1692e make both debt collectors and their attorneys liable for violations. The Sixth Circuit in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX interpreted any false representation or deceptive means to collect... any debt 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ) ( XXXX ) to encompass misleading acts directed at a court because statements made by the attorney for a debt collector also fall within the scope of the FDCPA. [ See XXXX, 514 U.S. at 294 ]. In order to fulfill the purpose of the FDCPA to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses, it is necessary to resolve this dispute. 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( XXXX  ). 

The Ninth Circuit applied a higher standard of review when attorneys are involved because an attorney stands a significantly lower chance of being bullied or taken advantage of as compared to his client. Consumer believes that the conversation is no longer between the debt collector and Consumer, but a third party, the JUDGE has also been introduced to the conversation as a finder of fact. Because both the Consumer and the judge play vital roles in the resolution of a debt collection suit, a misrepresentation to either party may significantly affect the outcome of that suit. If debt collector makes a misrepresentation to recover a debt, it should not matter whether the debtor, his attorney, or the presiding judge is deceived so long as that deception results in an improper recovery at the Consumers expense. A misstatement can be made inside or outside of the courtroom. In the case of third-party debt collection, either type of deception has the potential to harm Consumers by misleading either the Consumer or the judge. 

The goal of passing the FDCPA was that private civil suits by Consumers would make it a primarily self-enforcing piece of legislation. [ S. REP. NO. 95-382, at 5 ]. Therefore, it is essential that consumers be permitted to enforce this right and not have to wait on a third party to champion their cause. [ XXXX XXXX, Controlling Fraud Against the Government : The Need for Decentralized Enforcement, 58 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 995, 1014 ( XXXX ) ]. Narrowly interpreting Section 1692e would cut off a Consumers remedy in cases such as XXXX where a misrepresentation has been made in court. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 635 F.3d 938, 939 ( 7th Cir. XXXX  ). ] Instead, the consumer would be forced to depend on the court to use its discretion under Rule 11 [ The usage of the word may in Rule 11 ( c ) gives judges discretionary power to impose sanctions. FED. R. CIV. P. 11 ( c ) ] ( or the respective states equivalent to Rule 11 ) to deal with any misrepresentations made by a debt collector. [ Rule 11 ( b ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states the following : ( b ) Representations to the Court. 

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paperwhether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating itan Attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances : ( 1 ) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation [ and ]... ( 3 ) the factual contentions have evidentiary support.... ] Second, limiting the scope of Section 1692e will also counter the spirit of the Supreme Courts decision in XXXX XXXX XXXX to provide further protections to Consumers from debt collectors who would use their attorneys as hired guns to avoid liability under Section 1692e. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291, 298 ( XXXX ) ]. 

A narrow interpretation of Section 1692e would take this private cause of action away from Consumers, effectively undermining the FDCPAs purpose of protecting consumers by eliminating abusive and deceptive debt collection practices. [ The first section of the FDCPA states that [ t ] here is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors, and in response, the FDCPA was enacted to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors because the [ e ] xisting laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers. 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( 2006 ) ]. 

The debt collector has not : 1. Validation of the debt ( the actual accounting ).

2. Verification of your claim against me a four and a half a day or a hand sign invoice in accordance with the bill of exchange in 1882 uniform commercial codes federal fair credit reporting act in Michigan Civil Code for lawful purposes.
3. A copy of the contract signed by both partied and therefore binding both parties.

4. Please also provide me with a true and certified copy not a photocopy of the original note credit agreement under penalty of perjury and the unlimited liability and confirm that this note has never been sold. 
5. Please also confirm major who is duly authorized representative from your company who has carried out due diligence under the money laundering regulations XXXX and what action she has taken in relation to this account. 
6. Please delete account from 3 Credit Bureaus of documentation is not sent! 

By using its regulatory powers to define Section 1692e, [ Dodd-Frank Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 1022 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ), 124 Stat. 1376, 1981 ( 2010 ) ( codified at 12 U.S.C. 5512 ) ], by gathering more accurate data on specific types of debt collector abuses, [ Detweiler, supra note 200 ], and by requiring a more stringent document transfer process when selling debt, [ THE PATH FORWARD, supra note 195, at 1718. ], the CFPB could also effectively address the increasing problem of deceptive debt collection practices. [ Between XXXX and XXXX, there has been a steady increase in the number of complaints, related to misrepresentations by third-party debt collectors, received by the FTC that have been categorized as [ d ] emanding larger payment than permitted and [ t ] hreatening dire consequences if consumer fails to pay. See ANNUAL REPORT XXXX, supra note 1, at 7 ]. The FDCPA is a body of law meant to be enforced by Consumers should not apply to all aspects of debt collection. Section 1692e will be interpreted by the Supreme Court and the CFPB in a way that extends its protective scope into the courtroom. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. , 516 F.3d 85, 91 ( 2d Cir. XXXXXXXX ) ( stating that the FDCPA grants a PRIVATE RIGHT [ 15 USC 1692a ] of action to a Consumer who receives a communication that violates the Act ).

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation