you're under the fair debt collection practices act is meant by congress to curb abusive debt collection practices and every action brought under the f t c p a has to be interpreted and ruled on such a way as to further that purpose and what happened here runs directly contrary to both the expressed purposes of the fair debt collection practices act and to the way this court has instructed lower courts to interpret communications in connection with that collision this case presents as we said in our briefing an extension or the contrary of the nataline case from one thousand nine hundred ninety two to support first held that a repossession agent such as asset recovery mr stranded here could be held liable under the fair debt collection practices act if that repossession agent was attempting to collect a feat that might be paid to an underlying creditor that is of course the classic definition of a debt collector under the f t c p a a someone who is attempting to collect money alleged to be owed to another and the alleged is important here as is the fact that the purposes of the fair debt collection practices act are to be furthered under this court's instructions by reviewing communications not through the eyes of a federal judge or experience counsel or even the repossession agent but through the eyes of an unsophisticated debtor and that's really what's at the heart of this is whether a jury could have believed that asset recovery and mr stranded its principal were demanding payment on behalf of wells fargo not whether they were in fact intending to take one hundred dollars from mr duncan in exchange for personal property and pay that to the wells fargo loan but whether an unsophisticated debtor would have interpreted the entire sequence of events leading up to this confrontation in the shop and as recovery as being a demand that ms duncan not only pay one hundred dollars to get her personal property back from her car but that that one hundred dollars would then be transferred to wells fargo someone other than the person for whom mr was collecting in this case the facts become very important because it begins with ms duncan's car being repossessed without her knowledge and she contacts ultimately the police and learns that her car has been repossessed with some personal property in it and she calls up the creditor wells fargo and one of the first things the creditor says to her is not only do you have to pay forty seven hundred dollars to us to redeem your car but they also told her you need to pick up your personal property soon or you might pay a fee and that's the first communication that helps inform how you can interpret this case and how you should interpret the unsophisticated better standard because ms duncan begins with a question of how can she get her car back and wells fargo affirmatively solicits and says you need to get there get your personal property before you have to pay a fee in this duncan is not just making this fee up out of whole cloth this isn't something she invented submitted by we you know and you know we don't we at the end of the day that's not that's not ultimately what occurred that i think i think your characterization of what happened in the early phases of it may be accurate but the end of the day was communicated clearly to but both of them avoid the question of whether a fair debt collection practices that violation occurred prior to the change in the form of the police intervention because what ms duncan testified to is that on the phone mr stanley repeatedly told her she had to pay hundred dollars and that he presented her damage the damage yet what's the harm what the harm is that she would have to turn over one hundred dollars to get her personal property back or as in this case she lost her personal property so she lost a hundred dollars worth of personal property not to mention the distress that was caused by it how did she lose that the personal property windows of the phone call it was clearly explained to her and was even written norma form but the hundred dollars would be paid by wells gosh so how did she lose her personal property she does a result of this one hundred dollar business she lost her personal property as a result of the hundred dollar business because the repeated attempts to collect one hundred dollars from her led her to distrust the form that she was confronted with and she would not sign a form that appeared to her to be require so is there a special rule for people who are paranoid to think that the former whatever is on a form that's not true i'm just not believing it and therefore i won't s respect what miss duncan testified to is that the form she was presented with did not have the handwritten notation about no fees being billed to her and the fees being billed to w f t s she said that she was presented with a form that described her as  imposed one hundred dollars fee and that she was asked to sign and in the eyes of an unsophisticated debtor it doesn't require any special paranoia for an unsophisticated debtor to believe especially in light of the prior communications that she's going to have to pay  hundred dollars or will be billed by wells fargo one hundred dollars now ms duggan also testified i mean she tested in the back of the red brief they attached excerpts of her deposition testimony from pages one forty four and one forty five and she seems to acknowledge the yeah they did explain to me that wells fargo was going to cover that fee for me was she explains that the police officer and mr strangely after the initial confrontation with mr stanley told her that she was not going to be charged any fees but that occurred after she had been confronted with the form that she interpreted as requiring a hundred dollar fee and that is not the form that the defendant submitted to the court as we explained to the district court in this brief the formis duncan actually viewed she testified that her deposition was different than the form the defendant submitted and ms duncan one of our contentions is that ms duncan should have been allowed under the federal rules about events to testify to the jury what the contents were of the form that she viewed and the jury would then be the arbiter of whether that form existed and what it said and so the after the fact explanation by mr stranded in the police officer don't serve to as the district court appeared to believe cure the violation you can't cure an f c p i f d c p a violation that's already occurred what happened when the police officer intervened and spoke with ms duncan to mr strand lee is that the police officer helped mr strand lee not commit a second violation of the f and that may or may not be relevant to the damages miss duncan incurred but it's not relevant to whether all of the interactions prior to that constituted a violation of the f t c p a you can't have a police officer come in and violate the f of fact in this case which is whether a jury should have been allowed to decide which form existed and if this one that ms duncan testified existed it was believed by the jury that the jury could certainly in for a fair debt collection practices act violation she request at the time she viewed it to process it and it was denied to her mr stradley would not let her possess the the form that's correct he would not let her keep a copy of it or take a copy with her in requested to do that i believe she requested a copy  form when she was talking with the police officer but she was not ever allowed to take a copy of the former photograph the form in any way she was very clear about that in her testimony i did want to reserve some time for what i have twenty seconds left so if there's no further questions i'll reserve my twenty seconds please the court i'm bill or am representing media pelleas here i had an argument put together based on the typical outline with highlighting i'm all for callers but i've got to address a couple things that you asked mr paygo there is nothing in the record that ms duncan on february sixteenth ask anybody to take a document or a copy of a document pitt mr payroll just indicated to you the police officer showed it to her heechee may have asked him there's nothing in the record that she asked mr graham before secondarily he's trying to create a question of fact on the existence of of a nonexistent document judge connally in his decision and all that very nicely and very cleanly and said she testified not what was in the document and she's not capable to do that as we sit here today but she said it was completely typed there was no handwriting on it that's the document that is in the exhibits and then we have  produced which by the way in rats response to your question two hundred fifty seven pages of discovery all of the wells fargo documents all of the asset recovery documents were produced and other than counsel accusing us of hiding something which i don't think he's doing there was no other documents so the theory here is it should have gone to a jury so that mr duncan could testify the same way i don't have a copy of a document i can't tell you what it said all i know it was typewritten but i speculate that it required me to pay a fee so that i don't think that gets anywhere near the standards that  commonly appropriately addressed going back to a couple other things mr peggle said he talked about the madeline case and which i think judge calmly handled and applied perfectly again here counsel just indicated to  one was whether or not a fee collected by a report agent might be paid to a lender that's not what madeline says nabel and says that before you even get to that point of consideration you have to plead that a request was made by every point on behalf of the lender and if you have to plead and show that if that fee is paid it is going to go to satisfy the original loan obligation and there's nothing in the record to really happened here in judge calmly address this also in her deposition testimony in february two thousand seventeen she said when asked to describe all of her phone conversations with mr strand lee all she said was he told me he would not tell me where to get my car that's all there was in judge connally saw that and then a month later gets an affidavit that completely contradicts that testimony and judge calmly to his credit what right up to the edge of confirming that was a sham affidavit and yet said it doesn't matter because judge what you just asked about we go depth the next to the february sixteenth and everybody is on the same page there's no fee that's going to be charge this duncan and she knows it and so this this evidence she talked about is is contradictory evidence to her own original deposition testimony i also hit on  madeline case it's important although i know it's not evidence but direct forty six of course complaint their own complaint states that the personal property was not security for the loan here that ends the nataline question because natalie requires that if you're charging a fee and you get the fee you have to take that money and satisfy the loan obligation and that just doesn't exist here so we get to that point then and this this aspect of well there were these phone calls and then there was a discussion on february sixteenth and again her own complaint in paragraph lee she didn't have to pay a fee and then she went to asset recovery specialists and february sixteenth so she wrote over there knowing she didn't have to pay a fee she looked at the form the only one in the record and it says nothing about her paying a fee when the question comes up mr stram he says all right on here bill billed to wells fargo dealer services and then i've noticed that judge connelly didn't pick up as as much on this as as is clear but this whole idea of potentially whether or not this fee as counsel just referred to is going to get transferred to wells fargo the tell its own appendix of page thirty two has a few schedule and he would have you believe that that means that there fees here that he's going to collect from mr duncan and then send them on what he missed there is the very bottom paragraph there and this is the agreement between wells fargo  it's thirty two of the appendix to the brief of a policy the vendor reg stram lead and asset agrees that these fees are comprehensive and all inclusive to services rendered on wells fargo assignments and invoiced to wells fargo bank and a and no other charges associated with related wells fargo's customers will be assessed to the customer on the transaction and  he won't go there instead he tries to indicate that something on the feast schedule shows that craig stanley's going to collect the fee which he never was going to and then send that to wells fargo which he is not going to and so that's that's another indicator of why there was no reasonable question of fact here that a jury could look at and say he was going to charge a feat even if he was going to charge a fee the in of itself that's not a violation and they don't even go far enough in the pleadings much less the evidence or the facts to show that there is a fee that might even get near the natalie case and so that's the confirmation there is that there was never any contemplation the great streamliner asset recovery we're going to collect the fee and then send that to wells fargo much less any indication that that fee was then going to be used to satisfy miss  bought into it and i think that was the appropriate approach counsel said a couple of things about unsophisticated users or debtors and then he goes and he himself cited t the mcmillan case and i wanted to jump to that because that's misquoted and that doesn't apply here this was not a letter of gunning letter and macmillan that went to the debtor there and said you're either honest or not and there was a question of whether it was false or misleading here we don't have a dunning letter we have a form that is handed to a woman on february sixteenth and explained to her not only by mr stram lee but by a police officer she call in this is not a case that she really wasn't going or concerned about this aspect and this unsophisticated debtor thing we never saw any of that in til the reply by her response brief there's no pleading of that there's no indication that a false and misleading letter or form had been provided to work there still is no such thing in the pleadings and so mcmillian again it wasn't maile but the unsophisticated user claim which doesn't apply here if you did use that how can someone claim they're unsophisticated once explained by two different people you don't have to pay anything and then it's made no on the one form in evidence all these fees will be built to wells fargo so i don't think there's any traction to the last minute unsophisticated user claim still no allegation the pleadings to that  based on the information all the evidence i think judge calmly got it right i would ask this court to affirm his dismissal of the fair debt collection practices act which was by the way made only against greg strand me and never against sir with respect to the question of whether missed duncan testified to the inability to obtain the paper affidavit which is in our appendix ed page eighteen paragraph nineteen says strand really would not change the paper and would not let me keep a copy of the paper for my records so there is testimony in the record to that effect with respect to the form ms duncan testified that the form she saw no handwriting on it the page submitted by the defense of counsel discovery in this case was supplemental appendix page thirty two that does have handwritten notations on there there's another typewritten difference mr duncan testified that the paper she looked at said assess the important thing there is that the wells fargo fee schedule sanch to mr strangely expressly says that asset recovery and mr strangely are to charge a fifty dollars personal property storage fee to wells fargo payable to wells fargo and the redemption reinstatement fee to us for one hundred dollars again those would be things that the jury could take into account in saying was mr  allegedly trying to collect one hundred dollars to pay to wells fargo it doesn't have to be applied to the loan it doesn't have to be applied to or parktown it just has to be mr strangely trying to collect one hundred dollars that ms duncan believes is going to go to wells fargo