in excess of four hundred thousand dollars against melody cochran and also threaten to dispossess or of the property by foreclosing on the trustee now this case can be decided on under the dispossess mr cochran of her property when it doesn't have an infinite forcible security interest because we know that there is a prior judgment in california state court that holds that the person who created the alleged security interest never had an interest in the property well this time does our recent decision home versus re contrasts control the result in this case application of the f t c p a might interfere with the state law governing in force in a security interest so we don't have the application of and so i mean is there really created it was in default at the time of the signed to the defendants whereas in the present case the defendants were assigned a security interest that was already in default that's undisputed and so the perry case which which talks about the it's a fifth circuit case it talks about the the legislative  history of the f t c p a says that that the f t c p a will can apply if the security interest is in default at the time it is assigned to the defendant to the debt collector that's number one number two in an hoa the there wasn't a threat there wasn't a a demand for payment that was that was just a notice of default saying that you know in order to protect your rights you need to take certain steps whereas in the current case there was a demand letter pay us in excess of four hundred thousand dollars so there was just as host says that those specific holdings as if we don't say that all  does not have an enforceable security interest and in this case we know that the security interest was was found to be void by the state court so we don't even have to get to the whole case because sixty nine to f applies now even if the whole case were to have some application as i stated earlier it does open the door for liability because the  because again because of the void security interest doesn't it doesn't invoke any california laws like for example the hos case cited civil code twenty nine twenty four which talks about that a trustee cannot be held liable for extremely relevant to hear it in ho our court held that nontraditional foreclosure activity was not debt collection within the meaning of the f t c p a and you're trying to assert that it is i believe and in the opinion in that case the panel held that the word debt under the f t c p a should be read to mean money and that the object of the nontraditional foreclosure is to retake and resell the security not to collect money from the borrower so help me understand how your in a different position here your honor again i have to come back to sixty ninety two f supp paragraph sets that applies when a an attempt is made to take property without an enforceable security interest and we know the security interest is an enforceable in this case but it's still a security interest and not money is it is a void security interest even a security interest well so that seems like you're even on less it's how is it money well if if if it's threatening to take your property without it without it at under sixty nights you after doesn't involve just money it says if you threaten to take property without in a forcible security interest then that applies then the f t c applies even if it was less i think what you're asking is even if the security interest was  please the court i'm emily appealing representing respondents in this matter the central issue in this case is the validity of a deed of trust that the respondents own or are the designated trustee or beneficiary for ms cochrane claims the deed of trust is invalid and that is the sole reason why she asserts that the foreclosure activities conducted violated the f t c p a and relevant or related california debt collection statute you know if you  state court lawsuit and lost its the september two thousand and six lawsuit we discuss in our briefing in that lawsuit she filed an action against green point and also the individual who signed the d of trust and she sought claims for cancellation of the deed of trust and also for a claim to quiet title a judgment was issued in that case in two thousand and eleven the court not only found against her on those claims because he found that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations but the core rejected language that she put in the two thousand and eleven judgment that said that the ling would be invalidated so the court judicata is that that's the only thing that she hangs or had on to say that the foreclosure activity in this case was even unlawful as she points to the two thousand and eleven judgment that judgment doesn't say that and in fact  explicitly rejected adding language to that judgment that says that your honors we did ask for judicial notice in our briefing and i also submitted a supplemental request for judicial notice a few weeks ago to advise the court that ms cochrane has a completely separate state court lawsuit in which she again filed the same claim against aqua in this time and against the trust for cancellation of the deed of trust and in that case the california court found that it was barred by reza judicata the same argument we're making here now that is being appealed so under california it's not a final decision but i submitted it to your honor's because it's the same case it's the same facts she isn't alleged don't need that and you don't need that and what's your response of the federal debt collection act and whether it applies here by responses that as you suggested in your questions that hovey rican trust controls this case in that case the facts are nearly identical in fact you counsel mentioned that there was a separate demand letter in this case that's not in the record the record and the findings for the from the court below were that there were notices that were statutorily required by the california civil code those notices may have mentioned the four hundred something debt that was owed in order to stop the non judicial foreclosure but it's in the record and it was the same language that's required by the code it doesn't separately say pay us this money it just says this is what's owed we're going to proceed with foreclosure and where the creditors here are in fact engaged in nontraditional foreclosure activity well the only conduct actually alleged against any party is against western it's the one that sent all of the notices and the district court even commented that there was really no theory of vicarious liability alleged in the complaint asked the other parties but yes to answer your question the only contact here is these these code required foreclosure notices that were sent by western so the c p a doesn't allow relief what other remedies do we know in our briefing when we go through the and on her rights what you've been able to do well according to judge true who decided the state court two thousand and six action she she couldn't seek relief because the statute of limitations and passed it was a three year statute of limitations for fraud declaratory relief to cancel the instruments and quiet title and her complaint was filed september twenty first two thousand and six so the court found that she knew by at least september twenty first two thousand and three about the fraud that she was alleging in that complaint and you know the deed of trust here was signed in october two thousand and three so she knew before the deed of trust was ever signed if she was aware that there had been a fraudulent transfer of her property she could have filed an action filed a list pendants done something to their order had it was remedies under state laws the right to put parties on notice she certainly and if she didn't do that then she certainly could have filed a lawsuit within the statute of limitations and sort of sitting around for three years and is there any difference returning and this case which we should be aware i don't think there is any difference and i wanted to touch on one of the arguments made knowhow to talk about the one nine hundred sixty two f argument i think what's important to know in ho is that it's talking about two different things whether the trust the foreclosure trustee is a debt collector and whether the foreclosure trustee is engaged in a debt collection activity on the debt collector question that's where we look at sixty ninety two after because the course says if you look  at sixteen ninety two it explains that a debt collector is either a business that's principally engaged in collecting debts or it regularly collects debts of others and then if you read the statute a little further it says under sixty two sixty ninety two f it can also be someone who's engaged in inforcing security interests but only for a violation of that sixty ninety two f subsection six here i don't the court doesn't even need to go there because there is no violation of sixty ninety two subsection in the complaint in this case and a host said the same thing when i analyze its case it said we don't need to discuss that because sixteen ninety two f subsection six isn't an alleged violation here the complaint never mentions that statute the complaint never mentions that the any defendant is a debt collector under this narrow exception it instead refers to the broad definition she doesn't mention it once in her opposition the motion to dismiss or in the lower court briefing it's not mentioned in her opening brief sixt six is referenced briefly but not to argue that respondents are liable under that provision instead just to argue that the existence of that provision means that generally that parties that enforce lien can be debt collectors so it's not an argument that's ever been alleged below or argued below and shouldn't be considered by the court even if it is considered by this court though ho addresses a completely separate question of whether the foreclosure trustee is engaged in a debt collection activity that is a different question than whether they're a debt collector and host says a debt collection activity is the pursuit of money on a debt and and hoa notes that when you do a non foreclosure you can't get any money under california statute there's no deficiency allowed and the statue only allows the trustee to engage in this certain conduct there's no allegation that they've done anything separate other than these code authorized in fact required non judicial foreclosure notices so the whole court says this is not a debt collection activity and we have precisely the same kind of conduct in this case we have non judgment says that they don't have an enforceable security interest and we've already talked about that i'm not going to go repeat repeat it further again but but whenever one looks of that judgment you can ignore one paragraph or the other and while it's true that the court did find that melody cropper and was barred by the statue of limitations from seeking a quiet title action so to greenpoint which is the predecessor of the defendants and here has no interest in property so we know as we stand here today that we're talking about a trustee beneficiary that try to enforce a void security interest and by void i mean it doesn't exist it never was valid it never was and forcible which takes us into the sixty nine hundred two f and while there was discussion from counsel about how that statutory provision wasn't mentioned in the complaint well the facts certainly were and so the the notice was there to the defendants so that's the only rebuttal i have