accepted or rejected. The bankruptcy judge concluded that the conversation, assuming
it happened, was nothing more than an offer to settle the pending claim against
Chapman. After conducting our required de novo review of the relevant portions of
the record, we agree with that assessment. The FDCPA applies to attorneys who
regularly act as collectors on behalf of their clients but not to those who are engaged
ina litigation activity. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514U.S. 291, 294, 115 S.Ct. 1489, 1490-91
(1995). Attempting to reach a settlement is engaging in litigation activities.
Consequently, the FDCPA does not apply, and the Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on the adversary complaint.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law

of the bankruptcy court and enter summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Cpa Qaa foe oe

Charles P. Kocoras
United States District Judge

Dated: November 8, 2001



DISCUSSION
The bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction is statutory, rooted in Title 11 of the United
States Code. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Their jurisdiction derives from that of the district

courts and extends to proceedings related to a case brought under Title 11. In re

FedPak Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 207, 213 (7th Cir. 1996). In cases that are not directly
related to matters arising under Title 11, called “non-core proceedings,” the bankruptcy
judge submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.
28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The district court then conducts a de novo review of any
portion of the bankruptcy judge’s proposal to which a party makes specific written
objection and enters any final order or judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); Fed. R. Bank.
Proc. 9033(d).

Chapman’s only specific objection stems from the disputed conversation on July
31,2000. According to Chapman, in that conversation Defendants attempted to collect
the debt claimed by Schwab in violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

Chapman seems to imply that because the alleged conversation included a
discussion of money, it must have been an attempt to collect on a debt. We think this
view too narrow. A debt is an amount of money that a party is obligated to pay. 15

U.S.C. § 1692a(5); Newman v. Boehm, Pearstein & Bright, Ltd., 119 F.3d 477, 480

(7th Cir. 1997). A settlement offer, by contrast, is a contractual gesture that can be

-3-


‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

V5 Ce

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Charles P. Kocoras than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 5166 DATE 11/8/2001
CASE Chapman vs. Fischer et al
TITLE
[Inthe following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.8., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

ql) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

@) im} Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due, :

4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :

(6) ao Pretrial conference[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(7) o Trial{set for/re-set for] on at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CUFRCP4(m) (General Rule21 CFRCP4I@\(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) Ml [Other docket entry] Ruling held. ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: We adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions of law of the bankruptcy court and enter summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants. Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this ruling to the Clerk of the
Bankruptcy Court.

ay [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. oraber of notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
‘Notified counsel by telephone.
‘| Docketing to mail notices.
VY | Mail AO 430 form. Y .
ome ‘magistrate judge. 4
\ courtroom tawe h 6 date mated notice
scT deputy’s
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DOCKETED

EASTERN DIVISION
NOV $ 2001
LAMAR CHAPMAN III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) 01 C 5166

)
DIANE C. FISHER, RONALD P. KANE, )
MICHAEL A. KRAFT, and KANE & )
FISCHER, LTD., )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge:

This court has before it objections to proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law given in an opinion by Bankruptcy Judge Schmetterer. For the reasons stated
below, we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter summary
judgment for the Defendants.

BACKGROUND

Defendants Diane Fischer, Ronald Kane, Michael Kraft, and Kane & Fischer,
Ltd. (“Defendants”) began representing Charles Schwab & Co. (“Schwab”) in Plaintiff
Lamar Chapman’s (“Chapman”) bankruptcy proceeding in July 2000. At the

commencement of their representation, Defendants contacted Chapman regarding


filings, settlement possibilities, and discovery matters. In tesponse, Chapman filed a
seven-count adversary complaint, alleging that Defendants’ communications were
unlawful attempts to collect the debt Schwab asserted he owed. Chapman alleged
claims under various laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with supporting papers, which the
bankruptcy court accordingly treated as a motion for summary judgment. The parties
agreed on the existence and content of all the correspondences except one, a
conversation that supposedly took place on July 31,2000. The bankruptcy judge found
that the conversation was a settlement offer, not an attempt to collect the debt. Based
on that conclusion and the undisputed contents of the other correspondence, the judge
held that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

Chapman filed objections to the bankruptcy judge’s opinion, specifically
regarding the judge’s conclusions regarding the July 31 conversation. The bankruptcy
judge then proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to us and recommended
that we enter summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Neither Chapman nor
Defendants have filed additional objections, so we focus only on the objections that

were presented to the bankruptcy court.