may please the court the plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the f t c p a by sending them each a collection letter demanding payment up to charges a dollar fifty daily parking fee combined with a forty five dollar add on we'll call it that the plaintiffs claim is neither authorized by the contract or expressly permitted by law the issue on appeal here is whether either one of these charges meets the test for a debt covered by now to be a debt an obligation need only need three elements wine has to be an obligation or alleged obligation to pay money to has to arise from a transaction and three the subject of the transaction has to be for a personal family or household purpose the goods and services need to be a for a consumer purpose basically there's no dispute that either one of these charges meet there's no dispute that the two charges meet two of the elements for a test for debt obviously basters a still or this court ruled that a transaction trant the term transaction although not defined in the f t c p a is a very broad term and it includes virtually any consensual business dealings between two parties and the alleged dollar fifty julian paid dollar fifty parking charges issue here squarely meets this test because well up a lot operator here offered parking services to the general public in an unintended lot for the price of the dollar fifty per day and my clients the plaintiffs accepted that offer five point in the lot parking in a numbered space and at that point they became obligated to pay the dollar fifty day daily parking fee so you have an offer acceptance creating an obligation to pay in central transaction so accordingly the defense attempt to collect that dollar fifty parking fee was an attempt to collect the debt as defined by the f t c p s now the district court in concluding otherwise  we believe erred by putting limits on the definition of it the term transaction that cannot be found anywhere in the statute in some instances actually contradict statutory language first district court found that the failure to pay the  fee which was a non payment penalty of forty five dollars the case is about a dollar fifty parking fee plus the penalty the forty five dollars penalty l and got the district court focused and characterizing this as a fine rather than a transaction ok well the can that's it seems to me that any the key question here and that's what brought the gully case into play and so we need to decide how to properly characterize this charge i understand it contains both components well there's there's a dollar fifty charge that there are that there's a it arose from the trends that you have to look at both charges subtly if either one of these charges meets the test for debt then the collection letter seeking both of them together is an attempt to collect  however both charges you meet the test for death a dollar fifty for the reason i just explained this obligation incurred as a result of using parking services the forty five dollars charge though also meets the test for a debt by itself because but for the parking transaction it would not have risen so it to write but i'm focusing on the case of sheila vs what decided by this court where the court found the court costs over as a result of litigation over a consumer obligation our obligation a medical services obligation that case met the test for the court costs themselves met the test for debt even though they were not the focus of the transaction if you will because they arose as a result of the transaction the just like the court costs and she her the forty five dollars charge arose as a result of my client using this parking lot and and using the services that were offered to them by the operator in fact of the defense theory of the case of the feds claim that the forty five dollars is owed as is actually owed as a part of the contract it's like some sort of late charge so it is part of the contract creating are that arising from the underlying obligation to begin with th forty five dollars must necessarily arise from this consumer transaction as well and that's hence it meets the test for debt too so that's why both charges meet the test for death turning back to the district court's reasoning district court believed that in one hand nonpayment alone demonstrated that this wasn't a transaction stating the acceptance of parking service without paying the required fee does not create a consensual transaction because the court believe that no creditor would do business with expired meter the fire you get is for that expired reader get breaking the law it's not for failing to pay for the parking services you get on the spot in downtown chicago for five hours and you stay for five hours in one minute meter operator happens to be there they don't come in give you a fin based on that one minute they give you the standard fine provided by the municipal code for the expired meter and they don't they'll come back and say walk us additional amount for that one minute time you over they don't care how long you've been there all right and parking regulations for parking on public streets is a matter of municipal police power you anyway right you know those regulations are set by ordinance or statute or combination of ordinance and statutes and s easier to see why that doesn't meet the definition of consumer transaction under the f t c p a a that's not what we've got going on here we have private parking franchise operating on and the obligation arise from that still oh doesn't matter that there's a government actor involved sure if metro was running this franchise it would still be so big that it still be a debt because that would be metra acting as a property owner not as a regulator absolutely if the court has no further experience experiment asking if a tree falls in the forest and no one around it is around to hear it does it make a sound and put in the context of this case if an obligation is only hypothetical until a parking violation is placed on the windshield of a park or can it be a consensual transaction in what sense is the obligation hypothetical if the testimony in this case shows that a lot checker only comes three or four days a week or two or three days  excuse me so if i park i don't pay and it happens to be that day when the law checker doesn't come or i park after that checkers come i think there is an obligation there i did in favor of parking but it's hypothetical because to put the violation sticker or ticket or whatever it's called on the windshield it's for going recovery but it's not it doesn't make the transaction hypothetical the transaction isn't hypothetical but the liability is i mean certainly how it's not hypothetical it's just an realized car on and forced by the holder of the right to enforce the obligation well let me ask you this question second if the obligation to pay does not arise from a contractual transaction where does it arise from arises from the  ability contractually granted by municipal and if the metra to such a parking services and in fact required by metra that central parking services in force parking fines and they are called lines within the contract that's irrelevant but they're called doesn't make any difference that and on what its function purpose reality is and in reality this is a fee for parking services and a late fee or a non pay not a late fee of nonpayment fee that's assessed in addition to the standard fee if the parker doesn't pay and that's a contractual transaction between the parker and the franchise issues in this case is a parent's contention that there were no signs present at the lot informing that all goes to the merits i'm talking about how to characterize the dollar fifty and the forty five dollar nonpayment fee i don't believe that they can be separated i believe that even not separating them considering them together as a unit if the obligation arises as a matter of contract law it certainly doesn't arise as a matter of tort law a but metra does is a municipality and it just happens power it has but it didn't adopt the fee and the nonpayment fee as a part of its police power to regulate  attracts for example and it certainly doesn't have police power over the parking lot against police power over the railroad tracks over the parking lot it has you know the rights of a property owner like a private property owner and the fact that it's a public entity doesn't make any difference it's acting as a property owner when it licenses or authorizes this franchise the c p s to run the parking lot and in fact in the contract metra indicates that all disputes between patron and operator meaning between operator c p s u your client or the debt collector your client is the debt collector is working for c p s and the patron meaning the parker shall be handled as a matter of contract well that kind of page fifteen of the contract between metro and c p s well your honor if it's a matter of contract and consumer transaction it's at that you loose i well again  my issue is that if there is a contract in this case the contract allowed my client to impose this fine so it doesn't right necessarily nets and allows your client to collect it but you have to comply with the fair debt collection practices act when you collect it well it is about the practices not your in title meant to collect the debt write the nature of the transaction the issuance of the fine is not consensual and the fact that this contract between metra and c p s at certain points calls that a fine isn't controlling here it depends on what it is in actuality well and i'm not saying that it's controlling however  know under that rationale then how can any private operator of any lot in this city penalize anyone for you know parking a fire lane or you know jug something else that a fire only parking that's a matter of minutes because that's different i'm talking about as property owner or here the franchisee operating the lot on behalf of the property owners they can enforce parking fees plus the nonpayment charges as a matter of contract because that's the only other that's the only source of the legal obligation to pay can't be toward or if it is tort you know you're going to take scofflaws to court for trespass right i think that the property owner has the right to say you if this is a contract and the there is no there are no genuine issues of material fact that this was this was properly issued for example you go back and you let it get that but that goes to the merits of the claim we're here on this discrete issue about that it's that it is a dad then we still don't have liability because we are not attempting to put you know a collect a fee that is not available by law or authorized by the underlying contracts the underlying contract actually is relevant to  there's all different dimensions of this claim there's there's claims about the improper content of the notice and other issues i mean this is not just about whether you can collect the forty five dollars or whether that's more than what the contract between c p s and metra permitted it's about the manner in which the collection was being undertaken and representation is that were made in the dunning letter through and none of that has been litigated as i understand it all of that has been litigated it was all right it was all it a gated in the summary judgment it was referenced in both parents brief and you know responded to in my prefer that has was litigated fully in summary judgment authorized by the agreement underlying the debt or authorized by existing law or flee the third one is the misrepresentation of the amount owed or the misrepresentation of the the use of the in writing requirement again they it's those two issues are the only two other issues and they were litigated in the summary judgment well on the issue of whether the forty five dollar nonpayment charge was authorized the contract only allows twenty five dollars but metra ratified that metra knew imposed for example in this these cases no payment in box and the amount of that fine which these cases was forty six dollars and fifty cents my client does not adding additional fees make client doesn't make any determination and has no discretion with regard to  still conclude at that at that point you have to c p a applies and the district court on remand then could still determine that the forty five dollars and attempt to collect it violates the f t c p a even if the forty five dollars itself does not meet the test for a debt because section sixt f one states that the debt collectors not allowed time to collect any charge fee or what have you incidental to the underlying obligation of the dollar fifty a license express the authorized by the contract or by a law which it was not for the reasons we stated in our briefs in terms of whether the merits were litigator their brief but the court does record to not decide those issues and so those issues are for this court but there before the court in the briefs but there's no decision for the quarter of you from the district court on those issues