read please the court counsel and daniel edelman priggish laps before the court is one of two inconsistent rulings from the northern district of illinois regarding safeguards field agent activities safeguard s plain clothes field agents to the homes of defaulted mortgage borrowers ask them to call the mortgage company and delivers or hangs a note directing them to do so right away the caller will get the general customer service line and a collector safeguard makes one two three attempts at this the door hanger with a message is designed by safeguards in its training materials and it's used for different mortgage companies the agents are instructed his house to identify himself and the person refused to do so the met the agents also report on the status of the property they can condition and that's not also necessary to make decisions regarding collection s whether the mortgage company should sue in the note or take possession of the property the main object of the visit is to get the confusion were to call and this short personal message is effective at doing this it's advertised as being for concurrent acting the link went viral wars it's only used for mortgages in default mortgage companies do not pay to have these agents visit people who aren't in default safeguard  says and the district court in this case agreed that this isn't debt collection we don't receive money and facilitation is not a term in the at the c p a well the f t c pays very broadly phrased collects or tends to collect directly or indirectly and it's not a proper analysis to suggest what terms could have been included in the statute but work because one can always do there the statute itself contains a long list of a tyrannies which are similar to those who gauge right in by safeguard and which indicate that would save does is part of that collection there is a specific exemption for process servers a specialized kore only works for creditors or debt collectors or their counsel and delivers legal papers that person is going to need an exemption which indicates that the basic conduct is part of debt collection these the act civic covers providing information to debtors and obtaining information from or about them sixty ninety to the ten states that are painting information by deceptive means is is a violation if that's a violation attaining information whether or not through deception is necessarily part of that collection sixty ninety two b says that a painting information about the location of a debtor is part of that collect sixty ninety two d six prohibits telephone calls which do not identify the company which is calling so that under the decision below a third party one creditor who leaves messages by telephone is engaged in conduct regulated by the f t c yea but having it person visit the debtor personally and provide exactly the same message isn't the which frankly makes no sense six ninety two feet fourteen expands a kindy six and says that it a third party debt collector must operate under its own company name not that of somebody else they must identify themselves in the cases in fact are consistent and hold that this type of conduct is debt collection for example of painting information we have the room mean and you  neither of the defendants in those cases obtained money instead provided them somewhat mysterious message and when the consumer returned a phone call they were told they had somebody was trying to count their them for collection purposes and more importantly their number was capture the phone number from which the return call was placed and that was sold to a creditor or debt collection the ninth circuit in the colorado decision below that this type of activity is in fact part of the debt collection process mistretta one yes we've got a federal regulation that tells lenders or loan servicers in the situation that they have to visually inspect the property right that is correct so person goes on to the property we presume is not trespassing when he does this theory into windows trying to see if the building occupied homeowner arrives home ask him what's going on what do you think he or she is obliged to say or do in response he should identify if not his personal name the name of the company that he's actually working for in this state case safeguard truthfully answer what he is doing there and within the specified period of five days provide the notice is required he  should if there's a conversation with the consumer presumably his merson has already received through the debtors already received plenty of notices at this point right if you have at least if the loan servicer is already is complying with the law right now the loan servicer may or may not be subject to the f t c p a if it's an ordinary mortgage company they very well may not it's their own data that is correct ok by if it's a loan servicing not subject to the f t c p a there is in fact a loan servicing exemption which covers mortgage companies which service for others if they acquired or got involved with the debt or default so it is entirely without the warnings being provided at all as for the defendant and makes a point about the hud regulation which is what you're on to refer to that doesn't mean that the activity isn't that collection hud has guaranteed the loan the purpose of the hud regulation is to ensure that mortgage companies handling hud loans promptly and appropriately pursue collection or seizure of the movie incidentally would require as a simply a visual and photographic inspection it does not actually require that they look into the windows it's usually done from a distance but question they are however what they are it is part of the debt collection process if a person goes out photographs or looks at the property from a distance and has no communication with anybody there is no violation and therefore  defendant says well our principal purpose isn't debt collection we do lots of other things such as board up vacant properties this is not a principal purpose case there are two casts there is collecting  behalf of another is your regular business activity and there is your principal purpose test were only could is saying that they directly or indirectly collect on behalf of another well how does this company and w me please the court panels to policies on behalf of safeguard properties l c i would agree with one thing that the council said that this is an indirect debt collector analysis in this case and i believe that the question before this court is did the lower court properly analyze the cases in the facts of this case to make this determination that safeguard is not a debt collector a safeguard that was going to be my question i'm going to ask you about a safeguard how you get your how do you get the jobs if do you go out and do there's a contract with each particular lender or it could be an insurance company there's other entities as well but for the most part there are contracts and agreements that identify  what activity safeguard does for each attitude and compensation is one of those things so what you do what you do do lease today you indicated to maintain vacant property right one of  that's it that's it we do not safeguard does not get any money does not know what that is does not know what the what amount is owed on the loan does not get any of that information is not compensated on a percentage of whether there is some agreement at some further point going to the analysis in this case and we believe that the district court did it properly it looked at the level of engagement and activity c versus jane m and justin services case is instructive because it held that the court should look to the defendants business as a whole in determining whether its principal purpose is debt collection the court did that and again i can see this is not a principal purpose case but in that case there was contact there was further follow of contact between the entity that was then determined to be a debt collector as to loan modifications the amount of the loan how they should be paid here there is none of that evidence in fact the ever the complaint the medical plane here alleges one visit where he door hanger was placed and if the court duly noted here mr schlapp was not home so basically he found the door hanger at the door and then called di techer greentree per what was listed on the door here our position is that would be the least most least intrusive manner of when doing  inspection to determine whether a property is occupied to then leave that door hanger and see if someone is still residing at the property that's what that's what the facts of this case are that one door hanger left instructing the debtor to call is enough to to make safeguard a debt collector and we would argue that it's not because they did they were contacted again the plaintiffs and other cases were not instructed to call safeguard safeguard did not have any intermediary holder would you agree counsel that without the regulation or at least a business purpose of preserving collateral this looks an awful lot like something intended to help collect the debt and if it and  is precisely argument that the hud guidelines require this activity to go on i would agree with you that if we were just going out basically just i know basic contractual order to go out and look at properties then yes or just leaving door hangers on the doors of people who have credit card debt correct correct i would agree with that and that's why we assert in this case based on the facts of this case and why the purpose of why we're out there but that's what he testified to there's nothing to the contrary to the evidence in this case he stated this is the purpose this is why we do these things this is why we have safeguard go out to the properties and there's a specific law guideline that says if it's after forty five days we need to that on that under that regulation if for whatever reason because from the door hanger or some other reason if the debtor reestablishes contact with the loan service or is there a continuing obligation to make inspections it it depends on what that contact is i think on a nigga i guess i would have to speculate on what exactly were i said but there could be a situation where there wouldn't be any further inspections or maybe there there maybe situation where there were but i couldn't answer that directly without specifically wells you enter into written contracts with these letters yes yes each lender has a specific written  contract describing what activities and what services a safeguard would provide and in this particular case there was one with tact subsequently greentree which identified all services that's part of the record and is correct yet was attached if it was attempting to be a debt collector i believe it would be an attorney to collect its own debt and i think would be  so going back to you know the analysis that was was undertaken by the the district court here i think what's also instructive and again it's never responded to in  reply brief for even in the initial brief is the first case that was cited was hanson vs santander consumer usa the recent supreme court case related to that the f t c p a and the reason why that case is instruct is not because of the facts and not because it was a door hanger case but for language that the supreme court specifically set forth in specifically stated indeed it is quite mistaken to assume it's petitioners would have us that whatever might appear to further the statutes primary objective must be the law safeguard would contend that this is exactly what players are trying to do in this case they're trying to assert that safeguard by putting a door hanger on a door in in further it's a pod regulations that they're required to do pursuant to a contract with a client somehow falls into debt collection because it must be debt collection because  there is a a defaulted loan here and we would assert that the court the underlying court did the proper analysis b p cause it looked at all the factors that were involved in the the level of contact and engagement between safeguarding the plaintiffs and found calls concerning any debt for all those reasons the court correctly concluded that safeguard is not a debt collector on the up under the f t c p a if the courts if your honour's you have any further