original creditor bank of america had break the district court in fact found that dependents were not entitle to collect the interest from the plant based on this judgment should have been entered in favor of the plaintiffs and not the defendant like but in fact two days ago this is called she this from the district court to the tree said the only letter within the structure limitations doesn't mention interest at all and therefore there is no substantive problem right and we also contend that that was in error your honor to understand that but that was the ground of the district  teen letter includes a balance of over six thousand dollars and within that balance is one thousand six hundred dollars worth of interest that had been waived by bank of america so is it the inclusion of balance do that has the six thousand three hundred dollars figure that you think is deceptive yes in the attempt to collect that through the march st twenty four and given that that this is in response to a letter from your clients attorney applying the what a reasonable attorney would understand how how could that be understood as something by a competent attorney other than a response to the well i think this court made clear in ruth that it's a objective test so it's the objective reasonable consumer and how that reasonable consumer would view the letter but looking at one of the in attorney is involved her case law says if so i think so how under the competent attorney standard with this letter of march st that's responding to the attorney's inquiry be deceived because it doesn't state or that it doesn't violation of the because the interest was on offer there is a dispute between the parties about what the waiver clause in the underlying loan agreement means right the district court took one position  are you saying that under this statute that the debtor and the debt collector can take only the position that their adversary thinks is correct i don't why can't they take a reasonable litigation be against the actual loan document in this case was not in the record it was a sample in the testimony relates to the bank of america's representative saying he's seen those types of  provisions in loan back and it's not specifically the plaintiffs but also the issue is that bank of america could only prospect of lee at interest at that point i understand that that use your contention in litigation and the argument on the other side is that there is an anti waiver clause in the agreement i'm trying to address a legal issue you seem to assume you don't argue you're just assuming that under the statute a debt collector mosse to take the legal position of the debtor and cannot take any legal position on the tone when it tries to collect a debt why does the lending act says that a anti waiver clause in a loan agreement will be ignored because you have to send period want to know mark i've asked you a question about the statute you say it's the truth in lending time that the assignor waived the debt you're just reasserting your contention that interest has been waived the debt collector says interest can't be waived because there's an anti waiver clause one or the other side may be correct about that fight i'm trying to figure out why in your view is it therefore a violation of federal law for the debt collector to take its legal position one that you say is wrong but which seems to have the support of contractual language why is it that in your view the fair debt collection practices  know i think you're just not understanding the question if it's clear that a debt was never accrued i can imagine such an argument but whether the act was violated has to depend on things as they stand at the time a letter is sent what happens in this case is that long after a letter is sent there is a dispute which the district court certainly did not treat  frivolous about whether interest was crewing under the language of the contract the district judge results that dispute but the resolution of the dispute i think does not retroactively go back and make the letter illegal right time runs only forward one year i hope you can see my problem i yank has during the two year period before they p they had waived the debt and when that is your legal position it is the district judge if the district judge had said something like the debt collector is making and i waiver argument that position is legally frivolous the judge didn't say that the judge said in fact they've got the better of the argument under the contractual language but i find that under the circumstances of this case i'm just not going to enforce and direct link that's what the judge but your argument seems to be that once the judge resolved that question in two thousand and eighteen or two thousand and nineteen a letter that had been sent four years earlier and seemed to be fine when said understand your position and where you think it is in the statute that if there is a bonafide non frivolous legal dispute about how much is owed the debt collector violates the statute by taking its own which you're not telling me what in the act makes it a violation of federal law for a debt collector to take a position that turns out not to win in court what is it that caused the step consequence because they are demanding amount that is not zero and there and therefore every time anybody takes a losing position it's not simply that they lose on the contract they adding interest and the added interest retroactively and then attended to and i see the problem but i don't think you do sorry and i say if there is a legal dispute over an amount how can a representation about what is owed be a misrepresentation so the communication itself has to be deceptive and i think the question is how can it be deceptive if that you if you had a view from a district court that the debt collectors legal position was frivolous i might go with you what if you've got a bonafide dispute what is it in the statute that requires the debt collector to take the debtors side over what that what ought to be done your honor there are a number of bankruptcy decisions in different this court that hold that a deck that an assigned bankruptcy decisions are worth the paper they are written on in the court of appeal and nothing more i'm asking about the statute why what is it that congress has said that requires the debt collector to take the at the time they purchased a bank of america admitted that they did not at any internet you're not you're not addressing my question you were just restating over and over your position on the merits am perfectly willing to assume that your position on the merits is correct the legal question i keep asking is what is it about the statute that makes it a violation of the a quest although this is a very interesting question that i have been pursuing with ms miller i don't see this argument in your brief are you making we're not your honor the oh you're not and you're making two arguments as i get possibly be true it's a verification letter the debt collector sends a demand counsel asked for verification they verify the statute requires the debt collector to do that how can you possibly say that this was not sent in connection with an effort to collect a debt when it's one of the very things the statute requires the debt collector to do in connection with the collection of a debt on your honor in  decision in two thousand and ten which is sort of one of the seminal decisions in this case by judge sykes she pointed out in a game doesn't make any difference who writes the opinion they speak for the court she pointed out in a footnote that it doesn't make any difference opinions of the court do not have a gender under the court held something under said your honor the court pointed out in footnote three that hearings to the formalities of the a that is following certain procedures should not be determinative of whether the particular communication at issue is actually subject to the f t c v a or not and i think there's a very good there's very good reason for this d is not covered by the act in goodson the th circuit decision your honor the plaintiffs actually called in to request information about the the debt that triggers the f t c p a verification under sixty nine to two g and then back you know under under g they're not allowed to collect the debt until they provide that information and i think the point is what courts have said over and over is that when look is there some case holding that a verification letter is not covered by the act because it is not sent in connection with an effort to not at all your honor i mean there were in the line of cases that say when a debt collector on the bottom of a collection letter says this is an attempt to collect a debt that does not mean it's an attempt to collect on that on there i understand that if for example what the letter did was offer a free subway sandwich it would not be in connection with an effort to collect a debt this is on doubt italy in connection with an  why i'm asking if there's some statutory language or some regulatory language or an appellate decision you're relying on for the proposition that a verification letter required by the fair debt collection practices act is normal us not even covered by the fair debt collection practices act well that would i mean the decision that we're trying to come within is gurdon and that was a verification a debt validation procedure and they said again that these disclaimers to every single piece of correspondence that that leaves their office from the most over over an express you know demand letter to the holiday card that sent out to the to the to the debtor these are simply done as a matter of course and including those disclaimers and language of the f c c p a does not determine that that piece of correspondence is subject to the f t c ph because otherwise you would sort of read out congress is important limiting itself and it's a case by case determination and the st is to analyze whether the piece i don't see how this can be a case by case the argument you're making is that a document required by the statute  covered by the statute it seems well on its face to be whacko your honor because there's not this is not a case by case determination verification letters are either covered by the act or they court said was it's decisive factor in which the th circuit hasn't directly addressed is that this was sent in response to an inquiry by the consumers attorney and the courts have long said you know this is a commonsense commonsense inquiry and i think if you step back and apply this commonsense analysis to this there's a big difference between a collection letter that sent directly to a consumer making a demand for payment it finds its way to the consumer in the consumer opens up the matter should only understand an argument that this document complies with the act which surely you appreciate that the act doesn't apply to this document  this document complies with the act are different arguments and you seem to be making the former but not the latter at least i couldn't see in your brief an argument that this document complied with yet substantive we are we did the that and that brings me to the statue of the statue of limitations point which is that there's nothing independently actionable or violent of in the letter what about the balance amount that the council argues the six thousand dollars figure that's in the upper right hand corner that says balance plaintiff's argument is that that's deceptive or misrepresentation because of the two thousand dollars amount face of that letter that is independently actionable or or deceptive or false whatsoever that relates to a decision to charge the collective interest what is the purported violation of the claim which occurred back in two thousand and eleven case in two thousand and sixteen by this court the court involved a foreclosure lawsuit and the lawsuit was filed outside of the f t c p a statute of limitations but nonetheless there are a number of actions taken to pursue that lawsuit within the statue of liberty the people who filed the foreclosure lawsuit routinely filed showed up in court and asserted their right to this and courts have said that you know actions taking in the course of litigation can be independently actionable under that the c p a but the court said i don't understand what this has to do with my question well and take the dominant case here is the supreme court's decision in morgan against amtrak which neither side has amtrak comes about with the following sequence year one plate of shows up in applies for a job and the defendant says we don't hire black people go away you're too he shows up in applies for a job and the defendant says we still don't hire black people go away and he then files a claim of discrimination based on what happened in you and the defendant says yeah but we told you that a year ago so this suit is too late the supreme court said wrong each discrete act as its own period of limitations and the fact that you may have violated the act before doesn't  matter so we've got three discrete acts here three letters under the approach of morgan against him track each has its own period of limitations and the fact that you may be impossible to sue on the st two which may have  violation of law in them doesn't matter under market why should the fair debt collection practices act be treated differently i don't think it's treated differently your honor i think you have to look at what is the source of the violation obviously an independent discriminatory act is independently actionable that's that's is what the lead better court held that that was that we cite in the brief but when it's simply the later affects of a prior violation  later effect of a prior violation it is alleged to be a brand new letter with a brand new incorrect number in it well you know that incorrect number this is what i was discussing w not violate the act but you're saying that even if it does violate the act it can't be sued on because an earlier letter also had an incorrect number and that's what i'm trying to figure out how that's consistent with time a letter is sent that does not comply with the act well but but and this is this is all just go briefly back to the good use did you see case in the court said that when they filed the foreclosure lawsuit outside of the statute of limitations and then they continued to show up in court and assert their right to this even though that was within the step each statute of limitations that was simply the later effect of that original wrong of the assertion of the right and title meant to which occurred outside the limitation it so we're not arguing if there could be threatening and abusive letters nine letters they're sent out outside the limitations period and then another letter the exact same letter that sent within the limitations that threatening a that's an independent actionable discreet wrong because in order to gauge whether it violates the act you simply have to look at the face of the letter itself was the paramount original letter that was sent from the plaintiff's attorney asking for their education at but the goods you ski court hold held that even when someone shows up in court and asserts a right to a debt that's within the statute of limitations because they filed the lawsuit outside the statute limits that's not independently actionable and that's consistent in fact with a lot of the cases that the plaintiffs have cited in their briefs that show that you have to look at the specific wrong of it's alleged and whether it's apparent from the face of the letter itself or or it's simply the effect of some earlier violation that's why this is a different case than the threatening and use of letter that sent out repeatedly  disclaimer language following one thousand six hundred and ninety two g in the disclosure language cannot because it's included in everything that leaves a debt collectors office cannot be determinative of whether the act applies congress certainly could have decided that they're going to make a strict liability statute that applies to every single piece of paper that leaves a debt collector office but they didn't they limited it specifically to these pieces of communications that are sent in connection with the club i see my time is up your hours we'd ask that the