additional group it is including more persons in that same definition not excluding persons not applying this third definition to say oh but we're going to throw out all these other definitions that are accepted by all the court that's only trying to regain possession of the problem returned rightful possession to the rightful owner they don't try to collect the debt as defined by the statute in eighty five the word debt is the collection of expanding debt collection is designed to be very narrow and that's why they specifically referred only to s six which only refers to repossession or the threat of repossession when you don't have the right to do so it does not refer to collection of the debt and a very simple purpose if you read a number of cases and if you look at the statute in the whole congress didn't want to prevent somebody from regaining rightful possession of property that belongs to them and on the other hand if you were trying to collect a debt at the same time then the statute plies but what happens frequently in the way this was  a six covers these defendants there are people out there who can do nothing but go book up cars and pull in one way they never contact the debtor they never send a letter they never ask for money now there are cases also where if someone does repossession of the car before they do it they say oh by the way you can pay this that and regularly collects money then they're held to be done collectors so the question becomes are they trying to collect a debt and that's really where this case is decided that this statute is only designed to picks up the car and hauls that away now in one sense that's collecting that because you're collecting the car to pay for the debt you're going to sell the car so technically really well but the the difference is in this case when they send out the notice sale they ask for money they do a communication they're trying to collect a debt and that third definition of debt collector doesn't use the word debt and the reason it doesn't use the word that is because there's no request for money when somebody goes out and hooks up a car this amount and that is that collection and that's different from merely foreclosing on security interest where you never asked for the payment of money and that's the key if it's a valid payment of money is to the communication for the payment of money then it is  they don't require a third party to do that the end of standard car repossession case it's the creditor sends out notices and says you all this amount and they have to be in default but no the repossession agent doesn't contact you and say i'm going to come because that's your car they just took it up and and my primary argument is they regularly collect deaths they were one list of themselves as a trustee service one list of themselves as a as a collection service but they always take that after the fault and the statute in two places under creditor definition and under the exceptions and exclusion to a six done at the bottom of that statute where the solutions properly are says if you take it as your default if you don't take it after the fault you're not a debt collector and important because congress already thought of this if you have a trustee who is really a trustee who comes into this at the beginning of the process before it's half the fault they're in no danger from the statute because it doesn't apply to them it's only these companies that are set up to collect these to threaten foreclosure and then if it's not paid to actually do the non judicial foreclosure that's the whole purpose of these businesses and i better say that because they weren't not even appointed the successor trustee at the point in time that that occurred  well i want to focus on one point relating to this definition of debt collector and i think the issue as to whether or not he's got these three definitions of debt collector in a six are mutually exclusive has been well brief and but i don't think it's necessary to answer that question for this appeal because there is no evidence in the record that the professional foreclosure defendants satisfied either of the first two definitions even if you're right even if it's theoretically possible for an entity whose principal purpose just to enforce security interests could also be involved in the regular collection of deaths there is simply no evidence in the record that the professional kloepfer closure collection of money whether that takes you out of means you're under the statute no longer enforcing security interests and instead of being involved in a regular guy collection and i think the focus on whether or not the collection of money  the collection of money it would perhaps most importantly it doesn't if you look at the policy of why this carve out for security and for serious was created in the statute the policy has nothing to f it is from a district court outside the circuit it's never less than a pin important case because it's really the only case that deals with the palestinians behind a success compared with the policy which the holder of the security interest still almost unlike the debtor who last the money soft the possessor of a secured property still has control of the property and failure to return the property to the rightful owner occurs not through misfortune but through a deliberate decision by the present possessor to avoid returning the property so in other words companies that are directly involved in a foresman of security interests don't have the same incentive as ordinary debt collectors to engage in the over aggressive practices of debt collection because they're not stuck kind of holidays who are make them pay their debt as a bitch convince them why to pay their debt as opposed to you know the all the other debts that these consumers typically ha because it would have been necessary even to get within sixty ninety two sets that he's got two minutes i just want to he did that request for two minutes if i could just make one more brief point and still preserve is too much i do want to just reference the fact that we've made a second argument which could be the basis for affirming this appeal and that is that the case is preempted by the bankruptcy code plaintiff's argument to that is that this case is not really about the bankruptcy code at all but that it's although he made those arguments in his brief history reviews complaint paragraphs five point five five point seven five points twelve and five foot five points thirteen and five yes yes that is correct f six a is the only one of the issue and a refers to it's an unfair collection practice to take or threaten non judicial foreclosure quote there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral to an enforceable security interest in this case we know that thompson was in the fall on the deed of trust the do you trust is in the without authority in sending out the notice of default and we don't concede that point but yes that's true then there would be a violation of state law however there is no violation of the f t c be a in this case because there was a right to possession by the money store and that's the only question in the ship and that's all i need to address my time thank you very much we argued at the court ruled against us but it was sort of the throwaway because he'd already found the statute didn't apply so when he got to the point of ruling on that note we did argue that but it was never our primary thru nature didn't apply is that something other than ruling that appeal wasn't a collector they ruled they were the judge ruled they weren't that collector that this action would still apply even if they were simply seeking to correct in the judge ruled that he didn't find that we had urged they violated it but we clearly had judgment and that was my recollection i was just looking for my briefing on that on my computer and i didn't find that section but that's my recollection  back i honestly can't say for sure that that was in the briefing it was my recollection that it was again the primary thrust that we were making at the time were the more substantive violations of the taking of too much money these p and more than eight hundred dollars each from our client which was under a statute eleven u s c five zero six b which requires those fees to be reasonable this court has gone a long ways than versus going recently in ninety nine pages collector and send it back to judge shea to find out it's the statute was violated other than have sex with according to counsel's argument s six would only ever apply if it's that so called third calling that's phantom limb of the debt collection practices