proceedings but i'm not sure that you know that's what it is not just kind of a technical corkey procedural requirement that you have to you have to include the i'm sensually you have to have a prayer for money wrong well but they didn't do that they pursued their judicial foreclosure and so you're saying just because there's some thier out radical possibility that they could drop their lawsuit and gone and change their mind and gone after money instead of property that we should apply the fair debt collection practices act two the judicial foreclosure proceeding in oregon yes and there's two yea it shifts over just what is has been ok also it sounds to me it sounds to me like you know this is just as easy of a case as a california one but it's certainly not as bad as arizona's or somewhere in between but convince us that you're closer to i understand this isn't completely or new but it seems closer to california and it does arizona in a sense that if you do pursue the or closure you don't have a and my intent is to use eight minutes of time this morning and then you'll to my question will at that point i'd like to continue this conversation about whether this is dec lection but before i do that i want to take a step back because in order to establish a claim under the f t c ph against fannie mae or the terrorists as a threshold matter we have to answer the question of whether either of these parties were debt collectors and as the court record in the briefing has indicated fann mae was not attacked elector and the reason for this is because fannie mae owns the debt that it was seeking to collect the supreme court enhancing versus santander has made clear that a company that collects debt that it purchased for its own account is not trigger the step straight definition of a debt collector and this is because the plain language of the act folks says on rd party collection agents that are regularly collecting for another debt owner not a debt over sticking to collect itself the doesn't this thing unlike california it doesn't stink with your ability to get a deficiency judgment well i think that his basis for the argument is that i could change my mind to go to something else later and if that's the basis then we have a problem with the supreme court did was file the traditional foreclosure action the results of which would be the absence of any personal money judgment go toward against mr barnes so by operation of law and spain a little bit how it works is because it's there's a little difference isn't there that  says you do have to plead that you're asking or these used to at the plea that you're asking for the amount of the value of property you're getting can you can you once you do that can you say is there a point after that you can opt to instead of judicially purposing actually go after her money judgment no not without dismissing the judicial for closure action entirely potentially if you haven't yet got to judgment and starting something new i mean again this is like a hypothetical but the reason for the money judgment is because you need to be able to tell the defendant the amount that he has to pay in order to stop the action and you have to be able to establish a bid for the foreclosure sale if you just if you don't mention anything about money that's why the requirement it that the law change allows you to be a little bit more artistic about making clear that this this judgment amount is only for this purpose but that's really kind of a minor difference to the point remains you continue to pursue this borrower or are you merely enforcing the security and interest and that was the the holding in the primary frost of a desk is because the ultimate goal judgment so that's the the recognition is that if you are for closing plus so you're getting your security interest and you're also getting the money judgment then in the result may be different than what was found in up just simply every case that we've talked about that has not or it has not dismissed a defendant who was engaged in just her closure there was an allegation of additional conduct that was potentially a violation of the c p a whether it be demand letters that were sent outside of the context of the judicial closure reports you know allegedly false reporting to credit none of those extra actions are played in this case this case was solely about filing additional closure and the only thing raised in their placement briefing was about misrepresenting alleged misrepresentations in the context of just for closure when he decided they weren't really misrepresentations they were wholly in specific lee within the four corners of the collectors because in the case of any man it's collecting it's own debt and the principal purpose argument doesn't fit fannie mae fannie mae was created by congress coming out of the depression to spur the housing market and it's there to create liquidity a versus wells fargo that it's not going to assume the principal purpose if you don't make that argument mr olson i mean i understand why you would want to press the starting for clients but why is that if the statute doesn't apply to this proceeding lies why should we care me well again because i think it's you the question about the judicial closure is is is it debt collection and my point is before you can have a discussion about that collection you have to decide if your debt collectors i think they you know how they conducted themselves and your client or argument of our kind conducted themselves as as collecting on their own debt and that and that and therefore they are not debt collectors but that's just that's just the flip side of an automatic flip side of the argument that they were only collecting they were only collecting what was secured i think they're going to work well together if that's which thing i think they're both not debt collectors and it wasn't that collection i think that's what the briefing pleading established and without being able to you know provide closing did not fall within the parameters of f t p ca there's nothing that occurred in of dusky decision that changed the landscape of the law as far as applicable to this case this court's decision affirming the trial court st time around in two thousand and eighteen relied on the whole case and the whole case was mentioned and effectively recognized infirmed in the case and so our action that he had brought and its arguments related to that and since the time that we've been briefing this his title action has been dismissed affirmed the dismissal by this court and supreme court i believe even denied certain connection with that so those arguments which if you look back at the pleadings and the briefs take up probably ninety percent of the briefing in the underlying action that is all gone and dusty then we come to that end  dusty confirmed to the principles articulated by this court in hope that when a security interest is being adjudicated it is not seeking and it does not seek money a money award it doesn't within the cut the definition of debt collection under the f t p c a under specifically the definition of see ninety two dollars a five which says a debt is collection of money and collection of debt is a collection of money and because we don't have that here the old dusty decision affirms what this circuit had already done in whole and this court subsequently held in this case and that is the foreclosure activity of the defendants does not fall within the  mcnair decision was a very different situation than what we have here and it turns on the question of whether the creditor defendants sought money judgment in that case they did they did this court reversed the decision in that precisely and only because the defendants obtained a money judgment for the homeowners fees they can do that under that law they did that and this court reversed based on only that not on the foreclosure proceeding that was involved ok that didn't happen here and it cannot happen in oregon law whether a debtor creditor can change course and decide to dismiss something and do something else setting that aside i mean what they actually did was only foreclose and under oregon law there was not a possibility of them obtaining a money judgment and they did not obtain a money judgment so we fall squarely within hope which is still going on as well as the up just to see and consequently the trial court got it right you all got it right the st time around and there's no basis to reverse at this point i don't know if the court wants me to address the pleading issues that the plaintiff raises because i think i think it's important if you get beyond that and i think you ought to get beyond on that and you don't need to get beyond that one other thing i want to say that the andersen case that the plaintiff has talked about is simply a trial court case from oregon and it preceded both whole and up dusky and it really has  apply but it did carve out that that law and correctly observe that as this court subsequently did and later adopted by the by the u s supreme court planet is trying to say well look over here that there are a bunch of allegations that were have been looked over overlooked by the district court and the th circuit in its review but the things that they point to are simply conclusory allegations which are contradicted by the documents attached to the complaint you'll see if you look at r the complaint is lengthy and as you often see with the pro ses a lot of gobbledygook i will just say and there are hundreds of pages of attachments and if you look at the allegations they made contradicted by the attachments and in any event the examples that plaintiff gives of the so called misrepresentations are not false or deceptive if you look at them they're alleging things like plain of claimed to be the holder of the note and that was specifically denied by fannie mae at another time well if you look at what they're talking about again the documents are all attached fannie mae didn't acquire this note until in that between the foreclosure proceeding and the title proceeding in two thousand and seven and the foreclosure proceeding in two thousand and fifteen the statements that they are claiming are misrepresentation are not that and again are contradicted by the very things that they plaintiff has attached to his complaint they allege that plaintiff claims that a document attached in the foreclosure in two thousand and fifteen they had disclaimed knowledge of four years earlier well if you look at what they actually point to in the transcript or in the record reveals that this is not a false statement he appears to claim failure to produce something in earlier litigation is somehow an affirmative misrepresentation in later  litigation even though it is a stablished by anything plaintiff attached what was requested how it was requested how it's produced it just makes no sense so i would say if you get to that issue it you'll see that there aren't false they thank you