FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 11, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 11 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cv -0 05 33 -SLB ANNETT E CLARK, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us SHARPIR O AND PICKETT, LLP, EDITH PICKETT, and W ELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. f.k.a . W el ls Farg o Ho m e Mo rtg ag e, In c., f.k.a . Norwes t M ortg ag e In c., Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:InJu ly 199 5, An ne tt e Cl arkpu rch as eda ho m e b y ob ta in in g alo anfro m Pres id en ti al Mo rtg ag e Co rp or at io n, ev id en cedby a no te . To se cu re the lo an , Cl arkgra nt edPres id en ti al a m ortg ag e ag ai ns t the pro pe rty purs ua ntto a FHA Mo rtg ag e d at edJu ly 11, 1 99 5. OnMay 9, 19 96 , th e m ortg ag e was ass ig ne d t o W el ls Farg o, f/ k/ a Norwes t M ortg ag e, In c. Pu rs uantto th e te rm s o f th e n ot e, Cl arkwas o bl ig at edto m ak e p aym en ts to W el ls Farg o o n the fir stda y of e ach m on th be gi nn in g i n S ep te m be r 19 95 an d
co nt in ui ng un ti l Au gu st20 25
. Acco rd in g t o Well s Fa rg o, Cl arkm ad e al l o f he r 1
m on th ly paym en ts , at l eas t g en eral ly on t im e, fro m Ju ly 199 5 u nt il sh e m is se d a pa ym en t i n No ve m

be r 19 97 . Clark a ls o fa il edto m ak e p aym en ts in Jan ua ry 19 98 , Decem be r 19 98 , Sep te m

be r 19 99 , Nov em

be r 19 99 , Decem

be r 19 99 , and Nov em be r 20 02 . Howev er, Wells Farg o was pre cl ud edfro m pu rs ui ng for ecl os ur e be cau se be twee n J anuary 14 , 19 98 , andOcto be r 18 , 20 06 , Clarkwas u nd er

I f Wells Far g o did not rece ive her monthly pay ment by the fiftee nth of that month, 1 the note per

mitted W ells Fa

rg o to char g e a late fe e. Unde r the ter ms of the mortg ag e, Clark’ s monthly pay ment consisted of the month’s princ ipal, interest, and a ny applicable late cha

rg es; as well as one -twelfth of

the annua l assessed taxes and insura nce on the mortg ag ed prope rty . The mortg ag e fur

ther provide s that the borrow er de faults on the loan by “fa iling to pay

in full any monthly pay ment require d by

this S ecurity

Instrument prior to or on the due date of the next monthly pay ment.” In the eve nt of defa ult, W ells Fa

rg o may “re quire immediate pa

y ment in full of all sums secur ed by

this S ecurity

Instrument” and “ invoke the powe r of sa le” of the mortg ag ed proper ty , wher e per

mitted by the HUD Sec reta

ry . 2ba nkrupt cy

pro te ct io n. 2 As s oo n a s t he th irdba nkrupt cy cas e was di sm is se d wi th ou t d is ch arg e in Octo be r 20 06 , W el ls Farg o t oo k s te ps to ex erci se it s ri gh ts un de r th e n ot e an d
m ortg ag e. W el ls Farg o d em an de d fu ll pa ym en t o f al l am ou nt s due fro m Cla rkan d pl acedhe r m ortg ag e in for ecl os ur e st atus . In No ve m be r 20 06 , Cla rksen t a pa ym en t t o Well s Fa rg o, b utth e am ou ntwas i ns uf fic ie ntto bri ng he r acc ou nt
cu rren t. Wells Farg o re tu rn edth e ch eckto Cla rkwith alet te r in fo rm in g h er tha t he r acc ou ntwas i n “ fo recl os ur e st atus ” an d t ha t s he sh ou ldco nt actW el ls Farg o’s at to rn ey , Shapi ro & Pi ck et t, LLP (“ S&P” ), with que st io ns . Cla rk di d n otatt em

pt 3 to m ak e an y

furth er p aym en ts to W el ls Farg o a fte r he r Nov em be r pa ym en t was returne d. Well s Fa rg o h ire d S &P t o c on du cta fo recl os ur e sa le pu rs ua ntto th e
no te an d m ortg ag e. On Feb ru ary 13 , 20 07 , W el ls Farg o fo recl os edon Clark ’s 4

Three differ ent Chapter 13 ba nkruptcy case s were filed in Clark’s name during 2 this period. Eac h case was dismissed for f ailure to make bankruptc y plan pay ments. She contends that she f

iled the first ca se, but her ba nkruptcy attorney filed the other

two case s without her per

mission. Ten da y s later, Wells Fa

rg o sent a sec ond letter to Clark infor ming he r that she 3 had options, expressing the ba nk’s willingne ss to work with her, a nd sug g estingthat she conta ct their off ices or a consumer c redit counse ling a g ency . On Dec ember

13, 2006, S&P sent a “ Verification Notice ” to Clark. On De cembe r 4 19, 2006, S&P sent a for eclosure notice and e x planatory letter instructingClark that the fore closure sa le was se t for January 11, 2007, and that an a dvertisement to that ef fec t would run in The Alaba

ma Messeng er. In response , Clark’s attorne y sent a letter

to Wells Fa

rg o and S&P threateninga lawsuit and de mandinga pay ment history

specify ing the months Cl ark f

ailed to make he r pay

ments. On J anuar

y 11, 2007, S&P postponed the for eclosuresale until J anuar y 29, 3m ortg ag e. Acco rd in g t o Well s Farg o’s re co rd s, Cl arkwas e ig htpaym en ts be hi nd

un de r th e te rm s o f he r m ortg ag e, ex cl ud in g fe es an d fo recl os ur e ch arg es . Ann ette Cla rkfil edsu itag ai ns t S& P, atto rn ey Edi thPic ke tt , andW el ls Farg o i n t he Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a, al le gi ng : (1 ) vi ol at io n o f th e Fai r Deb t Co ll ect io n P ract ic es Act (“ FDCPA”) , (2)
co nv ers io n, (3 ) br each of c on tra ct , (4) frau d, (5 ) supp res si on , (6) co ns pi racy, (7)
ne gl ig en t an d wan to n h iri ng , tra in in g, s up erv is io n a ndret en ti on , (8) wron gf ul fo recl os ur e an d (9 ) in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d s umm ary jud gm en t as to all cla im s i n fa vo r of all Defen da nt s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he
m ag is tra te ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on an d g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t. We affi rm .
Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, v ie win g th e fac ts an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e
no n- m ov in g p arty . Moo re ex rel . Mo or e v . Rees e, 63 7 F .3d12 20 , 12 31 (11 th Cir
. 2007, and conta cted Wells Fa rg o to verify

the amount and a ccur acy of the de bt. Be tween J anuar y 17, 2007, and F ebrua

ry 6, 2007, S&P postponed the for eclosure sale twice and sent Clark’s attorne y

three letters conta ining pa y ment rec ords. Additionally , S&P reque sted that Clark’s attorne y

provide proof

of pay ment for the missingpay

ments. Clark’s attorne y

never responde d to this request. 420 11 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e “ th e m ov an t s ho ws tha t the re i s

no ge nu in e d is pu te as t o a ny m at eri al factan d the m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t
as a m atte r of

law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a). “ Onc e th e m ov in g p arty ha s p ro pe rly
supp orte d i ts m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, the bu rd ensh ift s t o t he no nm ov in g pa rty to ‘co m e fo rwardwith s pe ci fic fact s s ho win g t ha t the re i s a g enui ne is su e fo r tri al .’ ” In t’l St am

p Art , Inc . v. U.S. Po st al Serv ., 45 6 F .3d12 70 , 12 74 (11 th Cir
. 20 06 ) (quo ti ng Mat su sh it a Ele c. In du s. Co . v. Zen it h R ad io Co rp ., 47 5 U.S. 5 74 , 58 6- 87 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 34 8 (1 98 6) ). “ No g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts if a pa rty has fai le d t o ‘m ak e a s ho win g s uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh th e ex is te nc e o f an el em en t . . . on whi chth atpa rty will be ar the bu rd enof p ro of at t ria l.’ ” Am
. Fed ’n of Lab or& Co ng . of In du s. Org s. v . Cit y of M ia m i, 6 37 F.3d11 78 , 11 86 -8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (m od ifi cat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ti ng Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Cat ret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 22 , 10 6 S . Ct. 2 54 8 (1 98 6) ).

Dis cus si on Alm os t al l o f Cl ark ’s cla im s h in ge on whethe r orno t h er m ortg ag e was in de fau lt . Und er the term s o f th e n ot e an d m ortg ag e, th e b orro wer d efau lt s b y fai li ng to pa y

in ful l an y

m on th ly paym en t b y

th e due da te of t he ne xtm on th ly pa ym en t. Cl arkco nt en ds th atsh e m ad e al l o f he r m on th ly m ortg ag e p aym en ts
5fro m

Sep te m be r 1, 1 99 5, u nt il Nov em be r 31 , 20 06 . Howev er, the re i s
ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e in th e rec or d t ha t Cl ark ’s m ortg ag e was in arre ars . 5 Cl ark ’s paym en t h is to ry

rev eal s t ha t atth e ti m e h er thi rdba nkrupt cy cas e was fil ed , sh e was sev enpa ym en ts be hi ndon he r m ortg ag e. Duri ng th e co ur se of t he th irdbankrupt cy , th e b an krup tc y tru st ee m ad e th ree p aym en ts to wardCla rk ’s pre
pe ti ti on arre arag e. Thu s, atth e ti m e th e b an krup tc y cas e was di sm is se d i n Oct ob er 20 06 , Cla rkwas s ti ll at l eas t fo urpa ym en ts be hi ndon he r m ortg ag e. 6 Acco rd in g t o t he Ban krup tc y Trus te e’s In te rim St at em en t o f Decem be r 13 , 20 06 , at t he ti m e Cl ark ’s th irdbankrupt cy cas e was di sm is se d, Cl arkst il l o wed
Clark’s pay

ment history

is memorialized in mul tiple places in the r ecor d, 5 including: the B ankruptc y Trustee ’s Disburseme nt Report; Wells Fa rg o’s “L oan History” re cords for Clark’ s loan; Wells Farg o’s “B ankruptc y Pay ment History” for

Clark’s loan; and the “Pencil L edg er” sent to Clark befor e the f orec losure sale
. Clark ar gues that pursua

nt to HUD re gulations, she had to be thre e full pay ments 6 behind on her

mortg ag e prior to f

orec losure. Howe ver, Clar k did not mention the HUD regulations in her amende d complaint. Instead, in the bre ach of contra ct claim in her

amende d complaint, Clark asser

ts that “Pursuant to Section 6 of the mortg ag e contr act/agree ment, Wells Fa rg o has the right to forec lose on the loan only when the pla intiff failed to make the monthly mortg ag e pay

ments.” (Doc . 22 ¶ 59). She f urther c laims that she made a ll of her monthly mortg ag e pay

ments, was not in defa

ult, and Wells Farg o knew she was not in defa ult. Not until her briefs in opposition to the De fenda nts’ motions for summary judgme nt did she first advanc e an argument based on theHUD r egulations. Throughout discovery , the Def endants we re on notice only

of her theory that they brea ched the contra ct by

fore closingwhen she had in fa ct made a ll of her pa

y ments. “Having pr ocee ded through discovery without amending(or se eking to amend) [her] complaint to refle ct [the] fundame ntal chang e [in the nature of her c laim] , [C lark] was not entitled to raise it in the midst of summary judgme nt.” Hurlbe rt v. St. Mary ' s Hea lth Care Sy s., Inc., 439 F .3d 1286, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006). Howe ver, a ssuming arguendo that Clark ca n properly

make that a

rgument befor e this Court, the evidenc e demonstrates that she wa s more than thre e pay

ments in arre ars. 6$1 ,33 4.5 4 t o Well s Fa rg o t owardth e p re-p et it io n a rrea rag e. Thi s amoun t d oe s n ot

in cl ud e an y

fees , esc ro w def

ic ie nc ie s, o r ex pe ns es th ataccrue d t o C la rk ’s acco un t aft er the da te sh e fi le d h er thi rdCh ap te r 13 cas e, no r do es itin cl ud e th e o ne
m is se d p os t-p et it io n p aym en t. Bas edon th e Ban kr up tc y Trus te e’s St at em en t al on e, Cl arkwas i n d efau ltat t he ti m e Wells Farg o p la cedCla rk ’s m ortg ag e in fo recl os ur e st atus . Furth erm or e, be cau se Cla rkne ve r atte m pt edto m ak e a 7 pa ym en t af

te r Nov em

be r 20 06 , sh e was at l eas t two ad di ti on al pa y m en ts be hi nd whe n Well s Fa rg o fo recl os edon he r m ortg ag e in Feb ru ary 20 07
. Alt ho ug h C la rkin si st s s he ne ve r m is se d apa ym en t, s he ha s fa il edto po in t to an y ev id en ce t o s up po rt h er p os it io n. Gi ve n t he do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce, n o

The district cour

t properly found that the amount of Clark’s debt to Wells Far g o 7 as of the be g inning of

her third ba

nkruptcy was c onclusively

established as a

matter of f

eder al bankruptc y

law in the B ankruptc y

Court for the Nor

thern District of A labama. T his Court has held that “[c]onfirmation of a Chapter 13 plan by

a bankr uptcy court of c ompetent jurisdiction, in acc ordanc e with the proc edura l require ments of notice a nd hearing of

confirmation, is given the same [prec lusive] effec t as any district court’s fina l judgment on the me rits.” In re B ateman, 331 F.3d 821, 830 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). This res judicata eff ect pr ohibits the collater al attac k of a c onfirmed plan, “bar[ring ] l itigation not only of eve ry matter whic h was actua lly offe red a nd rec eived to sustain the dema nd, but also of eve ry

claim which might have been pr esente d.” I d. at 825 n.4, 830 (quotation omitted). Wells Farg o timely

filed a pr oof of c laim in Cl ark’ s third Chapter 13 ca se in the amount of $4,756.15. The B ankruptc y Court confirmed Clar

k’s Chapter 13 pla

n on Fe bruar

y 10, 2003. Be cause neither Clar

k nor any other intere sted party

objected to the pr oof of c laim prior to plan confirmation, “it is ‘deemed a llowed’ a nd is ‘prima fa cie e vidence of the va lidity and amount’ of the mortg ag e ar

rea rag e.” I d. at 827 (quoting11 U.S.C. § 502(a); F ed. R. Ba nkr. P. 3001(f)) . The Proof of Claim Wells Farg o filed in Clark’s third Chapter 13 case and the B ankruptc y Court’s Orde r conf

irming Clar

k’s Chapter 13 pa

y ment plan establish as a

matter of la

w that Clark wa s in defa ult in the amount of $4,756.15 at the time she filed f or bankr uptcy protec tion in November 2002. 7reas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d b el ie ve Cla rk ’s un subs ta nt ia te d t es ti m on y th atsh e
was no t i n a rrea rs on he r m ortg ag e atth e ti m e o f fo recl os ur e. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t as to all cla im s b as edon th e pr em is e th atCla rk ’s m ortg ag e was no t i n d efau lt . Thu s, s umm ary jud gm en t was pr op er as to th e cl ai m s fo r co nv ers io n; bre ach of c on tra ct ; fr au d; supp res si on ;
co ns pi racy; ne gl ig en t an d wan to n h iri ng , tra in in g, s up erv is io n a ndret en ti on ; an d
wro ng fu l fo recl os ur e as well as h er cl ai m s u nd er the FDCPA, 1 5 U.S.C. § § 16 92 e(2 ), 16 92 e(5 ), 16 92 e(1 0) , 16 92 f(1 ), an d 1 69 2f (6 ). 8 Cl ark ’s two rem ai ni ng cla im s al so fai l. Fi rs t, Cl arkall eg es th atth e Defen da nt s v io la te d § 16 92 g( a) b y fai li ng to sen d ava li da ti on let te r wit hi n fi ve da y s af te r th e in it ia l co m

m un ic at io n wi tha co ns um er i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e
co ll ect io n o f an y

de bt . On Dece m

be r 6, 2 00 6, p ur su an t t o HUD reg ul at io n 2 4 C.F.R. § 20 3.6 75 , S&P s en t a l et te r ad dr es se d t o t he “ Occupa nt ” o f th e m ortg ag ed pr op erty . On Dece m

be r 13 , 20 06 , S&P s en t a l et te r ad dr es se d t o C la rk . This

Clark’s initial brief doe s not mention her claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(2) and 8 1692e(4) . I ssues that are not briefe d on appea l are considere d abandone d. Denne y v. City of Albany , 247 F.3d 1172, 1182 ( 11th Cir. 2001). There fore , she has wa ived these c laims on appea l. Additionally , Clark did not plead in her Amended Complaint a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) . “This Court has re peate dly held that an issue not ra ised in the district court and r aised for the f irst time in an appea l will not be considered by this court.” Ac cess Now , Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omi tted). Thus, we do not resolve he r § 1692e( 8) cla im.
8se co ndlet te r was lab el ed“ VERIFIC ATION NOT ICE” an d c on ta in edall of the

in fo rm at io n re qu ire d u nd er § 16 92 g( a). Thu s, the sec on d l et te r was th e v al id at io n le tt er re qu ire d b y

th e st atut e. Howev er, Cl arkarg ue s tha t b ecau se th e le tt er was
se ntm or e th anfiv e d ay s af te r th e in it ia l HUD le tt er, S&P vi ol at edth e FDCPA. The Defen da nt s co nt en d t ha t the HUD let te r was no t an “ in it ia l
co m m un ic at io n” un de r th e FDCPA. Sec ti on 16 92 g( a) re qu ire s a d eb t co ll ect or ,

“ [w]ith in fiv e d ay s af

te r th e in it ia l co m

m un ic at io n wi th a co ns um er i n c on ne ct io n wit h t he co ll ect io n o f an y de bt ,” to sen d wri tt enno ti ce v eri fy in g t he de btan d in st ru ct in g h ow t he co ns um er ca n d is pu te th e d eb t. InVegav. Mc Kay , 35 1 F .3d 13 34 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (p er cu ria m), we he ldth ata fo recl os ur e p ack ag e co ns is ti ng of a ci vi l co m

pl ai nt , a su m

m on s t o app ear f

ora pr etria l co nf

eren ce, an d aFDCPA
no ti ce, was no t an “ in it ia l co m m un ic at io n” un de r § 1 69 2g (a). Id . at 1 33 5- 37
. Si m il arl y , we hav e h el d t ha t “ a co m m un ic at io n i ss ue d fr om

[a] fore cl os in g p arty , orit s co un se l, re ga rd in g t he for ecl os ur e, do es no t v io la te 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2c (b ), as
su ch a co m

m un ic at io n i s n otsubjec t t o t he FDCPA.” Aco st a v . Cam pb el l, 3 09 Fed . App ’x 31 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (pe r cu ria m). It fo ll ows th atif t he HUD let te r
was a co m

m un ic at io n i ss ue d fr om

a fo recl os in g p arty

or i ts co un se l re ga rd in g t he fo recl os ur e, th enitis no t an“ in it ia l co m m un ic at io n” th attri gg ers th e fi ve -d ay requi rem en t u nd er § 16 92 g( a).
9The HUD let te r was sen t b y S&P, co un se l t o fo recl os in g p arty W el ls Farg o. The let te r in fo rm edth e o ccupa ntth atth e m ortg ag e was ab ou t t o b e fo recl os edan d th atth e p ro pe rty woul d b e tr an sf erre d fi rs t t o Well s Fa rg o a ndth ento th e Secr et ary of

HUD. The let te r ex pl ai ne d t ha t HUD ge ne ral ly requ ire s t ha t the re b e
no on e li vi ng in pro pe rti es forwhi ch itacce pt s o wne rs hi p u nl es s ce rta in
co nd it io ns are m et . Fin al ly, th e le tt er i nc lu de d aco py of th e co nd it io ns an d
ex pl ai ne d h ow t he oc cupa ntco ul d c on ta ctHUD in o rd er t o re qu es t t o re m ai n o n th e p ro pe rty. N ot hi ng in th e le tt er s ug ge st edth atitwas a n “ in it ia l co m m un ic at io n wit h aco ns um er i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e co ll ect io n o f an y de bt .” § 1 69 2g (a). In st ead , th e le tt er was a co m m un ic at io n fr om

th e co un se l o f a fo recl os in g p arty reg ard in g afor ecl os ur e. As s uc h, t he HUD lette r was no t an“ in it ia l
co m m un ic at io n” un de r § 1 69 2g (a), an d t he Defen da nt s d idno t v io la te th e fi ve -d ay requi rem en t fo r se nd in g t he va li da ti on let te r. Add it io na ll y , th e co nt en ts of t he
va li da ti on let te r se nton Decem be r 13 , 20 06 , com

pl ie d wi th th e requi rem en ts set fo rth in§ 1 69 2g (a). Th eref or e, th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t as to Clark ’s cla im un de r § 1 69 2g (a). Fi na ll y , Cla rkcla im s t ha t S& P v io la te d § 16 92 g( b) by thre at en in g t o fo recl os e an d t ak in g s te ps to for ecl os e o n C lark ’s m ortg ag e p rio r to th e ex pi rat io n of th irt y da y s fr om

Decem be r 13 , 20 06 —t he da te of t he va li da ti on let te r.

10Howev er, the “pl ai n l an gu ag e o f § 1 69 2g (b ) do es no t ex ti ng ui sha cred it or ’s rig ht

to sec ur e a d eb t u nd er s ta te law, b utin st eadm erel y pro hi bi ts de cep ti ve co ll ect io n te ch ni qu es .” Shi m ekv. Weis sm an , Nowack , Curry & W il co , P.C., 37 4 F .3d 10 11 , 10 13 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Sect io n 1 69 2g (b ) pr ov id es : If the co ns um er n ot ifi es th e d eb t co ll ect orin writ in g wi th inth e th irt y -d ay pe rio d d es cri be d i n s ub se ct io n (a ) of th is sec ti on th atth e de bt , or any po rti on th ereo f, is di sp ut ed , or t ha t the co ns um er re qu es ts th e n am e an d a dd res s o f th e o rig in al cred it or , th e d eb t co ll ect orsh al l ceas e co ll ect io n o f th e d eb t, o r an y di sp ut edpo rti on th ereo f, un ti l the de btco ll ect orob ta in s v eri fic at io n o f th e d eb t o r a co py of a jud gm en t, orth e n am e an d a dd res s o f th e o rig in al cred it or , anda co py of s uc h ve rif ic at io n o r jud gm en t, o r na m e an d a dd res s o f th e o rig in al cred it or , is m ai le d t o t he co ns um er b y th e d eb t co ll ect or . Col le ct io n a ct iv it ie s an d c omm

un ic at io ns th atdo no t o th erwi se vi ol at e th is subc hapt er m ay co nt in ue du rin g t he 30 -d ay pe rio d re ferr edto in subs ect io n (a ) of th is sec ti on un le ss th e co ns um er h as no ti fie d t he de btco ll ect orin writ in g t ha t the de bt , or a ny po rti on of t he de bt , is di sp ut edor t ha t the co ns um er re qu es ts th e n am e an d a ddres s o f th e o rig in al cred it or . Any co ll ect io n a ct iv it ie s an d c omm un ic at io n dur in g t he 30 -d ay pe rio d m ay no t o ve rs ha do w or b e in co ns is te ntwith t he di sc lo su re o f th e co ns um er’s ri gh t t o d is pu te th e d eb t o r reque stth e n am e an d a ddres s of th e o rig in al cred it or . 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2g (b ) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Pri orto th e ex pi rat io n o f th e th irt y -d ay pe rio d, Cl ark ’s att orne y

di sp ut edth e de btvi a a l et te r da te d J anua ry 10 , 20 07 . Upo n re cei ptof t ha t l et te r, S&P imm ed ia te ly pos tp on edth e fo recl os ur e sa le fro m Jan uary 11 , 20 07 , un ti l J anua ry 29 , 20 07 , andve rif

ie d the de btwith Well s Fa rg o. No th in g i n the Defen da nt s’

11co nduc t v io la te d § 16 92 g( b) . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d

su m m ary jud gm en t as to Cla rk ’s cla im un de r § 1 69 2g (b ). AFFIR MED. 9

Clark’s re quest for or al ar gument is DENI ED. 9 12