my name is alex machinery i represent the plaintiff appellant in this matter can i have two minutes for rebuttal clock is counting down thank you on the issue in this case is whether a pelleas validation orders violates the in favor of the consumer any any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the debtor consumer the second principle that the court must consider is that the you know the court my supply the letter to dispute the debt so now the question is well if you have thirty five a subpoena that and thirty days from receiving a letter you know once you receive the letter anything in there in the fair debt collection practices act that says that if you dispute if the if the debtor disputes the debt or wants confirmation of the debt that the debt collector notified the debtor that they will stop collection well your honor there's if i understand your question correctly three circuits have addressed when it comes to validation as three circuits have addressed some sort of transitional language which means for example you know the second circuit the seventh circuit and in most recently the first report and basically what they said is look if you're going to ask if you're going to demand money within a certain time frame and at the same time you give that that or the you know the right to verify or ask for verification you have to have some kind of language informing you that are there look if you if you're going to disputed that we will not you know take legal action until we verify that and send the verification to you are now that you went off and said well you know the end of your five days because it takes you know you can't trust pony express can't trust the postal service right but do you see how a debtor can receive different there are three different issues in this case and i think you guys are are focusing on the second reason why the let of violets you know the first reason this is the fact that it's confusing ok the man for payment is will be recorded it's from a law firm signed by an attorney three courts have held that attorney letters are you know have to be looked at with closer scrutiny at least the seventh circuit said the price of poker has gone up when attorney gets involved but if you're going to put a deadline to payment you should have a transitional language as suggested by the second circuit seventh circuit and most recent the first circuit now going to the second issue which is the conflicting deadlines you have twenty five days from the date of the letter so that would be may first thirty five days from a first would have been june fourth ok you have to june fourth to pay that so that means that the amount has to be received by june for not sent by  recorded now but you have thirty days from seeing a letter so let's assume that the letter here was received on may second you know thirty days from that will be somewhat june first maybe so june first and  town you might not receive that i mean it's a consumer's protective statute the third reason you're honest about it because it makes a threat that he cannot make now i didn't cite a case a specific case addressing th differently the answer to that question really rides on and the cases that have dealt with in borson of security interests have have have looked at this in terms of the primary purpose derived from the fair debt collection practices provisions the language primary purpose becomes important in all of the cases that have dealt with enforcement of security interests that parse this out there is examination of the particular correspondence in question and that becomes important it ties into this may first two thousand and thirteen letter directly because the primary purpose the only purpose of that letter was just satisfy california prelim notice requirement wasn't to collect a debt she owes money she'll find one of the three hundred eighty five dollars to go to the to the homeowners association correct and it was to enforce the security interest that correspondence goes beyond the statutory notice requirements for enforcement of lien rights corresponding to the assessment responsibility that becomes debt collection so in other words if there were other letters or even within the body of the may first letter there were there were there were efforts to collect the deck that were not expressly required by statute the only reference to the amount of the debt there is clearly there was a debt in question the and that is not like a debt to me it is a debt there's no question that this is a debt under high under and the fair debt collection practices act you have to show three things to get to violation of the fair debt collection practices act you have to  show that there that the we're dealing with a debt collector who was engaged in collection of a debt and that there was a violation you have to show those three things and the circuits that have addressed the enforcement of security interests have addressed it from the perspective of looking at the four corners of the correspondence and whether it has whether that was the primary purpose was to collect the money for to satisfy the state requirements for enforcement of a security interest which this was this was clearly in conformity with california civil code section fifty sixty of the prelim letter every sentence in that letter is expressly required by that statute as notification to a homeowner who was in arrears for assessments so what do we do with those very one of the last sentences on the letters is this is a communication from a dick collector attempting to collect together in any information obtained will be used for that purpose that is because there may be that this is a form letter that is using connection ok so that letter is the first communication that went to the went to the homeowner machinery who was in arrears for act we are not taking the position that they're not required to give the validation notice that was the purpose of the first part of that letter was to satisfy the requirement of the thirty day validation notice requirement the thirty day violation no the validation notice is not a grace period it's not it's not intended to extend the right or to to allow the debtor to avoid the implications of the arrears the effect of being delinquent in a homeowners association means that there is a lien right that arises that very possibly confuse and intimidate and prevent them from exercising their right looking at the letter clearly state law requires any whether it's the association or a law firm the language contained in that letter notifying the debtor or here the homeowner that there could be a lien recorded against the property that is a fact and it's required by state law that disclosure of that fact be reminded thirty days before the lien is recorded so the davis sterling act heavily regulates the lien enforcement proceedings the burden the association with the thirty day notification requirement recorded notably these time periods and i guess the word complimentary was used by the district court these time periods are not in conflict with one another there's thirty five days from date of receipt thirty five days from the date of the letter to pay or the association would take further steps as necessary but this is what will result in a lien recorded if authorized by the board of directors has to this is with me will result well result in a lien being recorded against your property upon authorization of the board of directors the david sterling act civil code section fifty six after the at sec part you've got a notification really notice needs to include notification that the debtor can request mediation with the board can stop foreclosure activities by requesting mediation or an alternative dispute resolution process initiating all of those rights every sentence and that letter as required by civil code section fifty six but it doesn't say that you can't also put in some clarifying language  you have to have this case really does need to be resolved in the four corners of the of the pleading here as well as what can be reasonably alleged the only way you get into this scenario because i'm sorry not if seven ok but there is there are several hypothetical scenarios suggesting weeks or even months that it would this letter would be delayed in receipt this is why we did file a motion to supplement the record with the receipt date which shows that this was in fact received on may first so the idea that this should be read this letter needs to be interpreted in some bizarre way under hypothetical scenarios that are not present before the court facts that are not present before the court is and is unwarranted this letter was received may second so let me ask you this you know the first sentence why the difference in receipt versus the date of the letter that is pure statute fifty six sixty requires thirty days notice from the date of the letter and the fair debt collection practices act requires the validation notice  nothing requires you to combine these two notices together correct no but that you are correct but that does go to the policies behind the fair debt collection practices act and the competing  case the homeowners association we're talking about assessments this is the homeowners association in question and that's why i say that really does the scrutiny of the letter in question is critical because you have to look not only at what the letter is stating but also the purpose of the letter and the association is a fair deal i mean it's the association a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation it is performing services relating to the  maintenance of streets and the buildings that are part of the common area of the association where this property is located when and so the davis sterling act recognizes the competing interests by by placing not  only the obligation of the notice thirty day notice to protect the consumer but also allowing for the recording of the lean lean process is critical to the associations ability to perform it functions when the assessment recovery and it depends on the economy when after the two thousand and eight crisis the comin to association we're hamstrung in many ways where assessments weren't paid let me just clear there's i just want to make clarify one point there's nothing to stop you know under the statute from changing this first sentence to the payment is due within thirty five days from receipt of a letter just like you had in five days you could change it to receipt correct the problem there is a problem with the problem one hundred fifty so let's take the hypothetical scenario that is posited by the appellant that this letter would be received there's nothing in the statute that would prevent it is there yeah i believe there is actually that you would how do you have to comply with fifty six why do you get five extra days because the least there is it's from thirty five days from the date that it's tied to the date of the letter which is the critical point if we had some hype if we had some unknown date that was perhaps two weeks down from the date of the letter let's say let's say the letter was received may fifteenth under fifty six sixty the homeowner is entitled to rely on when that lien is going to be recorded so if a homeowner receives a letter that dated may first and they receive it on may fifteenth and it says from the date the lien would be recorded some time in mid you know they are subject to the entire act the eleventh circuit addressed this issue with security interests and collecting at that and secure at the same time and the judge and the court in that case it's really clear that you can do both but you have to consumer disputes it and then send that notice and say hey by the way we're going to record a lien on and why didn't i can she do that there's nothing preventing you from doing that they didn't do that but they didn't say they included a thirty five day