reasons why the district court erred in granting summary judgment and allowing nations starting gaijin sneaky pulls on a quarterly basis against mismanagement after her bankruptcy discharge in terms of standing the supreme court has said to determine standing we look at history and the judgment of congress here what we have is both a history of these types of lawsuits invasions of privacy intrusion upon and though we spend ensuite is not it directly on point they are invading her privacy looking at her credit report without a permissible purposely set the allegations so we do have a history we also have my correct no concrete injury to is pleaded we can get to concrete injury because the allegation is exactly one of the reasons and purposes what a fair credit act was fair credit reporting act was enacted was just for such a reason to limit somebodies access to their credit to a permissible purpose and here when i'm asking about it is not the procedural inference but rather  whether this case is like or distinguishable from one where somebody doesn't get an apartment they want her job they want her or something concrete like that on account of that and i'm authorized to look at a credit report i think that is the concrete de facto injury it's hard to quantify and measure but the fact that congress enacted a statute that says you need a permissible purpose and  at alleging they had no permissible purpose along with the historical lawsuit on invasion of privacy i believe we get to the point of saying we have a concrete the fact that we injury in this case and in your view the invasion of privacy is enduring yes that's always a tricky question and i'm afraid the supreme court has not educated me very well in spokeo but there we are but i think we can also look at the vent patent case and it said in essence if the statute in question is violated for the purpose of the statute that we really reach concreteness enough that we have here the whole leaf one of the points of the fair credit reporting act is not to allow somebody unlimited access and that's what we had here so i hope you may help me on the soft peaks as they call them the her soft pulls i think they call them when they made their but polls right now when they looked at her credit report did they look when she was no longer in possession of the house yes and she had received her dish charge there was one just her discharge was may  it depends on how you define account she didn't have a credit account she may have had an in rent account for nation star within its own sphere of keeping track of properties and said ok this properties associated with this account but she didn't have a credit account with them and that's one of the three reasons why the district court erred first there was no credit transaction involving the parties and why i say that is when we look at the definition of credit in consumer protection statutes is the deferral of a right to a payment she had dished up of a debt she had discharged that debt so there was no credit if there's no credit there's no credit transaction further it was not involving mr vandeman if we look at pintos and andrews she had no connection to nation star her original mortgage fifteen years ago was not with nation star she didn't know who nation star was she didn't rea her debt she wasn't looking for credit she was not involved with nation star they pulled her in and well it is very common for someone who wants proper dude who has a mortgage not to have any idea who the service rules these things get transferred all the time correct so i don't know that that's relevant that she doesn't know when the nation star is well it's relevant to the point of somebody being offended at their credits looked at by somebody who is this person why they're looking at my credit that's the offense there but there's no credit because there was no debt there's no credit transaction she wasn't involved she was pulled in that she had signed a loan fifteen years ago only tangentially gets her involved in this case and if there's no credit transaction pinto says you need both a credit transaction and an account to review there's no credit transaction we never even get to account review here there's no account to review going back to what you asked judge fisher nation star may have had an account internally this vandeman had no account with them there was no reason to look at her credit she didn't know them she wasn't seeking an extension of credit she wasn't seeking to modify the loan she had nothing to do with nation star that they would need to look at her credit yelling we looked at the declaration and missed the lol they said this of hundred  fifty different credit aspects we can determine by the sneaky polls and with no basis to even look at her credit because she no longer had a relationship with them there was no account to review on that and there was no in persona mccown i should say they may have had an engram account but not in him for so no account and finally there was no business person purpose this was a consumer loan a consumer debt on a mortgage so that doesn't get the nation see where there would be a business purpose i don't know if it's one that would give standing or whether it would violate the act but i can see why a company would like to look at what it's been doing in the past to see if it's a good procedure for example is a better to foreclose on these people who are taking bankruptcy as soon as we can or is it better to hold off and see if we can work something out with them in here here's a problem with that judge if i may once there's a dish charge you cannot even modify a loan people do it the reason is you have the sixty days after the bankruptcy filed to  reaffirm a debt anything after that between the debtor and creditor is an illegal read reaffirmation agreement that this is all true what you're saying i know you're correct but what i'm thinking is supposed to persons from paying their mortgage everything's fine they run up a huge medical debt they go bankrupt in order to get out from under it and after it's all over lender would still be happier just working out a new deal with a new mortgage and keeping them in their house because getting a whole bunch of deteriorating foreclosed on houses is worse for the creditor than getting more money later well that's a business purpose maybe for a nation star but if that's what i mean but it's a consumer purpose for mismanagement and the fact that nation store would rather sit on a property for six years with nobody living there no payments and never foreclosing and instead look at her quarter credit on a quarterly basis it really jury question as to why they would have please the court john lansford nation star mortgage i'd like to address the standing issue since you asked about that first there is and well go ahead go ahead i have some other no concrete injury at all to vandeman at all so i believe the question no allegation of emotional distress no financial harm nothing we went through discovery a lot of these cases are decided right at the motion to dismiss stage this case wen all the way through summary judgment no all we have here is a procedure all violation alleged which we dispute obviously we prevailed on summary judgment but just for standing purposes to argue it a procedural technical violation they claim we have consent for the soft holes prior to the bankruptcy discharge and then after the discharge they believe there's no consent i'd like to get away from sneaky p and softballs and talk about looking at her credit report yes you know so that it's concrete now let me ask you a question here i can see why you'd want to look at her credit report while she's still undischarged and i can see why you'd want to look at her credit report when she's still in the house but once the house is foreclosed on and she's discharged she doesn't owe you any money and she doesn't have any title or any other interest in the house and i can't see what justification there is for looking at her credit report when you say you have an account open file i don't see what i mean so why look at a credit report at that point ok and first of all they do it is a business practice until the account is close the account cannot be closed what do you mean account closed it sounds like you're just talking about a company that doesn't  on its own books close the account but she doesn't owe any money on the account if you have an asset when she signed up for the credit transaction judge she signed up for an end percent of the viability and rim if she doesn't have either remain the post bankruptcy and that lien creates the account all there was no foreclosure those were closure ever so the lien given to even far as we know even as today it would just be like someone not living in their house but they're still being elaine and they file bankruptcy you still have an account once you have a lien you've got to have the foreclosure or the deed in lieu or cash for keys or something to be out of total up the account to send the final tack i thought i thought the lien was gone bit the house had been foreclosed upon the judge the lane and it's in judge dawson's opinion and it's undisputed in the case the lane has never the house has never been foreclosed upon what happened judge is the house was sold subject to the lanes so it was sold at a trustee sale subject to the lanes and that's the reason judge if there was no lien on the property we could close out the account with a dollar figure send her the final ten ninety eight forms and there would be no account but just because someone has their bankruptcy discharge if until the lien is liquidated they can still open because you she may want to move back in the house and you have to a liquidated to see with the losses on the final tax forms so the the business practice of doing this post discharge is during the mortgage crisis people would file bankruptcy but the lien would never be removed and there was such a glut of bankruptcies through the system that until there was an actual more closure or deed in lieu or something like that that you know liquidated the lien you had to wait to the lien was liquidated to close the account were any of these so called pulls executed after the property was sold yes judge so why was that so that she's gone now right i mean  don't get down i mean who who's up who's obligated under the lien certainly not she she's not personally obligated but her in grimm rights and that property are her name still on that mortgage money and i does i don't understand what you say when used to her in ram rights on the property properties based on this earlier mortgage she does not own the property she owes no money on it yet you're still doing credit reports on her maiden talk about soft goals soft pull is getting property there's only on the property but she owes nothing on it and you're nonetheless doing these softballs i don't get why you're wanting to do that because you have you can't liquidate the account as to her and center the final tax forms until the lien is extinguished but then again is owned by the owner of the lien which is the loan servicer or the lender she has no interest in the lane and she no has no interest in the property so it seems like it's entirely up to the bank whether they find it more advantageous to keep an account open that's pretty much meaningless and as for you half the proposition that you have to keep it open in order to deal with her at some point you really don't as far as i can judge the person that buys it from the bankruptcy trustee sale it says subject to liens that new owner doesn't have any rights in the lane the only person has rights to the only  an but i had a body has no interest if the bank were ever to color up and say hey we found a buyer for your old house we'd like to talk with you about the when she came to say look i don't know any money i don't own the house i'm outta here don't bother me you can't close the account to use in the final tax forms and you have to liquidate the lane for her tax implications under the ten ninety nine and then ten ninety eight you have to liquidate the lien you have to keep but it can totally up to the do anything what was happening during that time was just there any interest in her is is there any reason that the loan servicer would pay her for some kind of paperwork on the lien there maybe if they wanted to if she wanted to her tax forms there could be and there's instances judged to where the borrower would stay in the property and the new owner would actually lease to the mrs van diemen's of the world and then there'd be a transaction but is that is that the case here there's no evidence of that judge either way the evidence they did there's no depositions of mrs vandeman they never took the deposition all we exchanged was  written discovery and judge i guess going back to where they wouldn't take a deposition mation starman nation star would correct but they would presumably want to take the deposition of nation star and they didn't do it why if they wanted  i can understand that i can understand that judge and i guess what we're saying is when you look at the statute when you just look at the willfulness analogy and you look at the statute and we didn't deem the account to be closed o interpretation of the statute was correct since we still had a lien on the property we believe our interpretation of the fair credit reporting act statute was correct there was no guidance from the f t c the only court of appeals case i understand that so i'm just saying that in order to recover damages against you you got nearly not merely to be wrong but really wrong yet and we so you may be wrong i may be i may be wrong judge but our interpretation of the statute in the lack of guidance and courts around the country both district and circuit have said this statute is not clear i still don't understand why you're preserving lean can you give it to me more concretely because judge until the lien is liquidated you don't know what the losses are you can liquidate it any time we could but we had i mean until the until you foreclose you don't know what the law says on the property you don't you have any idea if you foreclose on it and you resell it you don't know what the losses ordinarily do non judicial foreclosure which eliminates the lien yes a sell the house and what you do sometimes during the bankruptcy motion with the stay for the foreclosure that's right and then other times during this time period people would get discharge in the lane would just remain and you would try to keep contact with the borrower to see if they want to stay in the property so i'm sure you're just waiting to see whether the property value will recover civilians worth more so i was going on judge there's no evidence of that at all what you're trying to say that's a wrong thing to do meaning you know that if the if the house is underwater you might want to wait for the property market to recover the nation star wants to have performing mortgages as a service or and they did wait after a certain time period based on the mortgage crisis and they were rushing before because their intent and their business reasons for doing that are not in the record and i don't know what they were ok and a loan or do a new one to keep people in their houses because they don't want to have that during that time period and still even today the glut of our real estate and properties is so high i'd like to address the standing one more time and i think judge you are right this is a bear allegation of invasion of privacy and i think we've got the standing stuff under control again thank you thank you you know we we took we took you over time which is why i'm saying we got that under control ok you know and disagree with us but there we are thank you thank you you're just a couple of points you don't now you said that she was no longer in the house we have the other side that we don't know she's my client she hasn't been in the house in six years i did her bankruptcy when we converted from chapter thirteen to seven back in two thousand and twelve the reason why she gave up the house that was the only reason she filed thirteen with to try to keep it so at the end of two thousand and twelve she moved out we converted the chapter seven she hasn't been back since ok but is it in the record i let it go ok thank you you don't need to pull somebody credit to send them tax forms or documents there's other ways to get somebody said dress so the key point for me is now whether they're wrong as a matter of law i'm inclined to think they are the key question is of course it was a willful why why is it in your view is it willful because it does came out in two thousand and ten and it said you need both a credit transaction involving the debtor and an account review so by two thousand and ten in the ninth circuit anyway we knew you had to have a credit transaction and again credit is the deferral of payment on a debt once mismanagement discharge it early in two thousand and thirteen that was no credit and so they could be no credit transaction we also know from andrews and pintos andrews from twenty two thousand that you have to be involved she wasn't involved they pulled in after the fact i think i think the tax report made their capital gain for if if there's as i recall from that period when the when there a foreclosure on somebody's house then they had income to the extent that the loan was forgiven except under section one zero eight the discharge of debt is not taxable so the bankruptcy discharge she wouldn't have capital gain so she wouldn't so the discharge of the limb would be meaningless right there's and she discharged the debt whatever happens the property after that she's not affected would there be any tax significance whatsoever to their destructing when not to her there may be a statute that says send the form but the point is you don't need to pull or credit this to send the form and that's what they're trying to say we have to do that's a door about thank you the next case on the calendar this morning turner versus smith