a when did it become a debt it became a debt at the moment that they indicated that she had received over pa argument because the statute has done most of my work for me that after the c p s has broadly and simply the term consumer means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt them the question becomes whether the alleged grant overpayment as you've asked is a debt the statute defined debt also clearly and simply and relative replace i'm going to take this one clause and return the term debt it means in the obligation or alleged next and this is the question judge graves raise arising out of a transaction we know there was a transaction  government objectives in extending this grant to her she had to return to the home as her primary residence she had to maintain it as her primary residence for a number of years and if she sold it she had to make sure that a buyer fulfill those obligations to we also getting back to judge graves question that a wedge obligation arose poor insurance payments she would have to pay them back that was part of her country and finally we know that the road home money property your insurance or services would stop at that cause for a minute because the district court was looking primarily at property you were services but statute clearly says here with an order that money suffices and we know that the money which was the subject of the transaction was intended primarily for personal family or household purposes the restoration of her storm damage and so because the debt fits within the statutory definition and because she is right at the initiation of the klan the court found plenty of support for that understanding because that is after all the most commonplace form of consumption that we're accustomed to dealing with and that's what most of the courts have dealt with but the cases cited by the corps by the defendants ever said that thing we can look at the legislative history and in this case congress put its purpose and act in the statute in the preamble where it said that it was trying to eliminate  unlimited them but it is somewhat curb the abuses and debt collection became rampant with the proliferation of federal debt collectors to achieve th objective it defined both consumer and dad broadly as we've seen it to carve out some clear exceptions it's a creditor who himself goes after his dad is not under the umbrella of the f t c it was looking at professional debtors and their practices it also was looking of the transaction has to be the subject or primarily for personal family or household purpose because congress understood that it was individuals in which this grant we kept as defendants like to call it a rose makes it doubly clear that this is in fact debt collection the firms that they are trying to attendance has to be made under title thirty one and title thirty one in turn gives the federal government and the state the authority to hire a professional contract state to create a program to help consider people that were damaged by the hurricane the state created the programs all of the different requirements and how much money was going to provide the oversight there were several different requirements but that was one of the requirements there are several things that the people the contract that you heard discussed that was sound had several lots of requirements that the person who was receiving the grant money had to f now this was a grant this isn't d there's no obligation to repay the plant unless you don't abide by the terms of the break so that's the difference between this and all the other half the c p a debts cases that we've seen where we're trying to protect the sooners from unscrupulous debt collectors instead we have a grant from from the state of louisiana money that's provided to the to the individuals that they don't have to i think that with that so the big difference in this case is that what the quality of the quote of the actual transaction the money changing hands in the issue in this case there was no purchase of services or good to deal with someone bringing an f t p a claim over grants this isn't the st situation where grant money has been provided to citizens of the united states the federal government the state government have been providing grants to  since for a long time they create mechanisms to provide that money they provide the money to them and their requirements associated with them this isn't the st time on the katrina disaster it's not the another u s supreme court case that i thought was helpful it's fortune versus harris citing they were leans case so that grants of federal funds generally do not create a partnership or joint venture with the recipient i don't believe there's any dispute that the state created this program created the parameters of the program what was required how much money was going to be given what requirements were from the people asking for the money and they dealt with all th e complaints that she's making is that the state was administering this is incorrect that in of itself defeats the argument that this was actually a federal agency therefore no federal agency no federal statute go back to the louisiana statute which is a ten year stat agencies and therefore the federal statutes don't  court said look the fair tax collection practice act does not apply to every communication it's made by someone and i'm one creditor saying look you owe some money it doesn't apply you have a payment obligation that's to and things like that then if when al is discovered then money has to be returned so those are those are obligations on the part of the person who receives them but the underlying transaction at issue which is different than all the f d a the c p a cases that are seen and i would hazard i would guess that this course it is well whoa there was no underlying transaction where there was a purchase of goods  language is not clear as to how far it goes and all the course that i've interpreted that statute have said there are limits not every time someone picks up the phone or writes a letter and says hey i'm calling about that some money that it doesn't it doesn't say that no it has a definition in it that is broad but does d not i don't i don't believe includes the transaction issue in this case i think even when you look at the words d of the statute it does not this  i would say that the f t c p a was probably going to prevent misconduct and transactions where consumers were purchasing goods or services and then they were then they were bothered i do agree that my client was hired by the state always and to seek back the overpayments d that were made under the grant and so that is a person trying to collect back on within a thank you i'm going to get to their nd issue st because it's just not properly before the procedurally we're on appeal from the grant of rule twelve p six motion to dismiss right to address the question of whether the practices employed by the defendants were in fact violet of of the terms of the f t c p s a we're not ready to go there we have certainly preserved a point also hope in all our pleadings that there war on terror collection practices only one of which is the fact and i'm going to receive thirty thousand dollars for my college tuition and i'm going to obligate myself to teach for three years at the and after graduation and then you different i mean i don't know i know that i'm borrowing money on a student and i question was about a scholarship i'm sorry i don't know of any scholarship cases are but there are contingent didn't want  purchase of goods or services because that's what most consumer debt is so naturally that's what most of the cases are and