2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-6-2009 

# Atuahe ne O pp ong v

. Firs t Union Mtg P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3599

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Atuahe ne O ppon g v

. F ir s t U nion Mt g " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1395. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1395NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3599

___________ AT UAHE NE OP P ONG,

A ppel l ant v . F I RS T UNI ON MORT GAGE CO RP OR AT I ON; W E L L S F A R G O H O M E M O R T G A G E IN C .;

F RA NC I S S . HAL L I NAN

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- 02149) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay5, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay06, 2009 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A tuah en e O p p o n g ap p ea ls from the ju d g m en t of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er ed i n favorof W el l s Far go H om e M or t gage,O ppong obt ai ned the l oan i n 1995 fr om C or es t at es M or t gage Corpor at i on, w hi ch 1 m er ged w i th Fi r s tU ni on s oon ther eaf t er . H e def

aul t ed on the l oan i n 1996. 2 I nc. ( “W el l s Far go”) , i n O ppong’ s s ui tunderthe Fai rD ebtC ol l ect i on Pr act i ces A ct ( “FD C PA ”) , 15 U . S. C . §§ 1692 ets eq. O pp on g’s or i ginal com plai nt nam i ng F i rs tU nion M ort gag e C orporat i on (“Fi rs t U ni on”) , W el l s Far go, and Fr anci s S. H al l i nan, E s q. ( “H al l i nan”) , as defe ndant s al l eged th a t th e yf

a iled to p ro v id e h im w ith th e re q u isite v a lid a tio n in f o rm a tio n c o n c e rn in g h is debton hi s hom e mort gage, i n vi ol at i on of 15 U . S. C . § 1692g. I n 2004, w e af fi r m ed the 1 D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entas t o Fi r s tU ni on beca us e i tw as nota “de bt col l ect or , ” underthe FD C PA . See O ppong v. Fi r s tU ni on M or t gage Corp. , N o. 04- 1252, s l i p op. at9 ( 3d C i r . J ul . 22, 2004) . W e not ed thatal though the pay off f i gur e and re in s ta te m e n t f

ig u re d o c u m e n ts o n th e le tte rh e a d o f F e d e rm a n & P h e la n , L .L .P ., expl i ci t l ys t at ed that“thi s fi r m i s a debtcol l ect oratt empt i ng t o col l ecta debt , ” ther e w as no r ecor d evi dence thatatt orneyH al l i nan hi m s el f w as engage d i n debtcol l ect i ng a c tiv itie s , a n d th u s , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t h e w a s n o t a “ d e b t c o lle c to r” u n d e r t h e F D C P A . Id . at 6 -7 . W e v a c a ted ju d g m e n t as to W e lls F a rg o , h o w e v e r, an d re m a n d e d th e m a tter to the D i s tr i ctC our tbeca us e an i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t ed as t o W el l s Far go’ s “debt col l ect or ” s t atus . I n 2006, w e af fi r m ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng ats um m aryj udgm ent thatW el l s Far go w as a “de btcol l ect or ” underthe FD C PA , butw e vac at ed i t s rul i ng t hat O ppong’ s act i on w as barr ed bythe doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a. See O ppong v. Fi r s tU ni on3

M o rt g ag e C o rp., N o . 0 6 -13 8 8 , sli p o p . at 11 (3d C ir . Jan . 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 ). O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed a one - daynon- j urytr i al atw hi ch O ppong tes tifie d . O p p o n g a g re e d to th e f a c ts p ro p o se d b yW e lls F a rg o . T h e se f a c ts a re se t f

o rth i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on. See D . C t . O p. at3- 5. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatt he onl yi nt er act i on betw een O ppong and W el l s Far go, atanyr el evantt i m e, w as a l ett ert hat W el l s Far go s entt o O ppong, dat ed February26, 2001, s t at i ng thatW el l s Far go had a ss u m e d th e ro le o f

se rv ice r o f

O p p o n g ’s m o rtg a g e . T h e c o u rt a lso f o u n d th a t W e lls Far go nevers entO ppong a val i dat i on not i ce a nd thati tneveratt empt ed t o col l ectthe debt . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe l aw fi r m of Federm an and Phel an, L . L . P. , dr aft ed and fi l ed the for ecl os ur e ac t i on forFi r s tU ni on i n J anuary2000 and that , atthe f o re c lo su re trial in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 2 , the law f irm g a v e O p p o n g th e p a y o f f f ig u re d o c u m e n t, w hich i t em i zed the pay off fi gu re and am ou nts ow ed o n the l oan and at t orney ’s fees. A t trial, O p p o n g c o n ten d e d th a t W e lls F a rg o v io late d th e F D C P A w h e n it fa iled to pr ovi de hi m w i th a val i dat i on not i ce. W el l s Far go ar gued thatO ppong had i n fac t r ece i ved an “ i ni t i al comm uni cat i on” w hen he w as s erved w i th the for ecl os ur e compl ai nt fi l ed i n 2000. W el l s Far go al s o ar gued thatthe l anguage i n the for ecl os ur e compl ai nt s at i s fi ed al l of the r equi r ement s s etfor th i n § 1692g and, thus , i tcons t i tut ed a pr oper “v ali d ati o n n o ti ce . ” T h e D istri ct C o u rtag ree d , n o ti n g in ad d it ion that W ell s F arg o ’s dut i es as a debtcol l ect orunderthe FD C PA w er e nottr i gger ed bec aus e W el l s Far go never att empt ed t o col l ecton t he debt . T he D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed j udgm entforW el l s Far goW e lls F a rg o a rg u e s th a t O p p o n g f a iled to ra ise th is a rg u m e n t at tria l an d th u s it is 2 w aive d o n ap p ea l. A p p ell ee ’s B ri ef at 22 . U p o n rev iew o f th e tri al tran script, itap p ea rs th a t, alth o u g h O p p o n g d id n o t p re se n t v e rb a tim th e c laim th a t h e ra ise s o n a p p e a l, he d id ar gue thatFi r s tU ni on w as a cr edi t or , nota debtcol l ect or , and thatW el l s Far go, as a debt c o llec to r, h a d a se p a ra te d u tyu n d e r th e F D C P A to iss u e its o w n v a lid a tio n n o tice u p o n its ow n i ni t i al comm uni cat i on w i th O ppong. See TT at38- 39. W e dee m thi s pr es ent at i on of th e i s s u e t o b e s u f

f i c i e n tt o p r e s e r v e th e p r o s e a p p e l l a t e c l a i m. O ppong’ s cas e r es t s ent i r el yon w hetherthe for ecl os ur e compl ai ntcons t i tut es an 3 “ i n i t i a l c o mmu n i c a t i o n ” u n d e rth e F DCP A. I n 2 0 0 6 , Co n g r e s s a me n d e d 1 5 U. S . C § 4 a n d a g a in st O p p o n g . O p p o n g f iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctfol l ow i ng a benc h tr i al underthe clea rl yerro n eo u s stan d ard . G o rdo n v . L ew ist o w n H o sp . , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 1 8 4 , 2 0 1 (3d C ir . 2005) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew “overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s choi ce a nd i nt erpr et at i on of l e g a l p r e c e p t s . ” Bl a s b a n d v . Ra l e s , 9 7 1 F . 2 d 1 0 3 4 , 1 0 4 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. O p p o n g claim s tha t W ell s F arg o erro n eo u slyreli ed o n the f o rec losu re c o m p lai n t’ s in iti a l co m m u n ica tio n a n d v a lid a tio n n o tice b e c a u se it w a s is su e d b yF irst U n io n , w h o is n o t a “ d e b t co llec to r” u n d e r th e law . T h e c laim is m e ritles s. T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly 2 s etfor th the pr i nci pl es of l aw r egar di ng the FD C PA and corr ect l yappl i ed the s t andar ds f o r d e ter m in in g W e lls F a rg o s’ c o m p lian c e w ith § § 1 6 9 2 a a n d 1 6 9 2 g to th e f a c ts in O ppong’ s cas e. T he i ni t i al comm uni cat i on and val i dat i on not i ce w as i s s ued i n the for ecl os ur e compl ai ntdr aft ed bythe l aw fi r m of Federm an and Phel an, a s el f- pr ocl ai m ed d eb t collector rep rese n ti n g F ir st U n ion in the fo rec losu re a cti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt c o rre c tlyh e ld th a t th e su b sta n c e o f th e f o re c lo su re c o m p lain t’s v a lid a tio n n o tice f u lly compl i ed w i th al l of the not i ce r equi r ement s s etfor th i n 15 U . S. C . ¶ 1692g. T he D i s tr i ct 31692g, pr ovi di ng that“form al pl eadi ngs i n a ci vi l act i on s hal l notbe tr eat ed as an i ni t i al

comm uni cat i on” forpurpos es of tr i gger i ng the fi ve- dayt i m e per i od fors endi ng a w r i t t en val i dat i on not i ce. See § 1692g( d) . W e nee d notdeci de w hether§ 1692g( d) appl i es r etr oact i vel yi n O ppong’ s cas e bec aus e the r es ul ti s the s ame ei therw ay . I f § 1692g( d) does notappl yr etr oact i vel y , then W el l s Far go di d notvi ol at e the FD C PA beca us e the l aw fi r m ’ s for ecl os ur e compl ai ntcons t i tut ed a l egi t i m at e i ni t i al comm uni cat i on and val i dat i on not i ce r egar di ng the s ame debt . I f § 1692g( d) does appl yi n O ppong’ s cas e, the forecl osure com plai nt fi l ed in 200 0 an d W el l s Fargo’s form al subst i tuti on of it sel f as a partyi n the for ecl os ur e ac t i on i n J ul y2001, “s hal l notbe tr eat ed as ” i ni t i al co m m u n icati o n s u n d er the n ew p rov isi o n . T h u s, n eith er the law firm ’s no r W ell s F arg o ’s i n v o l v e me n ti n th e f

o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n tr i g g e r e d th e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e F DC P A. T he D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed the pot ent i al forconfus i on i n di s cerni ng betw een the 4 not i ce of a thi r tydayr es pons e t i m e forthe FD C PA and the tw enty - dayper i od perm i t t ed for answ eri ng a forecl osure com plai nt. T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed thata “l east so p h istica ted c o n su m e r” re v iew in g th e f o re c lo su re c o m p lain t in O p p o n g ’s c a se w o u ld have c om pr ehende d and bee n abl e t o fol l ow i t s i ndepende ntgui del i nes . See D i s tr i ct C o u rt O p in io n a t 1 4 . W e n o te th a t O p p o n g a p p a re n tlyc o m p re h e n d e d th e d if f e re n c e in the d ea d li n es f

o r fil ing an F D C P A resp o n se a n d fo r fil ing an an sw er to the fo rec losu re c o mp l a i n tb e c a u s e h e a n s we r e d th e f o r e c l o s u r e c o mp l a i n twi th i n th e twe n ty - d a yt i me per i od. 5 C ou rtal so prope rl yheld that the v al i dati on no t i ce sat i sfi ed the obj ect i ve “L east S o p h is tic a te d C o n s u m e r” s ta n d a rd . S e e W ils o n v . Q u a d ra m e d C o rp ., 2 2 5 F .3 d 3 5 0 n .2 4 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ; G r azi ano v. H arr i s on, 950 F. 2d 107, 111 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . T he not i ce w as stra ig h tf o rw a rd , n o t co n f

u sin g o r m isle a d in g ; itin d ica ted th a t th e d ra f ter o f th e c o m p lain t, th e law f irm o f F e d e rm a n a n d P h e lan , w a s in f a c t a d e b t co llec to r try in g to c o llec t a d e b t; i tcaut i oned O ppong t o s eek l egal advi ce, advi s ed hi m w her e t o geti t ; and i ti nform ed him w here he co uld fi nd l egal as si st ance if he co uld not afford a l aw y er. T hu s, becau se O ppong r ece i ved a f

ul l ycompl i antval i dat i on not i ce i n 2000, W el l s Far go w as not o b lig a ted u n d e r th e F D C P A to se n d its o w n v a lid a tio n n o tice f o r th e sa m e d e b t af

ter itO th e r th a n th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t W e lls F a rg o n e v e r a ttem p ted to 5 col l ecton t he debt , O ppong does notdi s put e on appe al the corr ectnes s of fa ct s t o w hi ch h e a g re e d a t trial. 6 t ook overs ervi ci ng the l oan i n M ar ch 2001. See Senft l e v. L andau, 390 F. Supp. 2d 463, 4 7 3 (D . M d . 2 0 0 5 ); N icho ls v. B yrd, 43 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 6 (D . N ev . 2 0 0 6 ). O ppong nextar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n m aki ng a fa ctual fi ndi ng that W el l s Far go neveratt empt ed t o col l ecton the debt . H e as s ert s thatW el l s Far go 5 att em p ted to co ll ec t on the d eb t w h en itsu b sti tuted it self a s the p lai n ti ff in the fo rec losu re a c tio n o n Ju ly2 4 , 2 0 0 1 , an d th a t W e lls F a rg o v io late d th e F D C P A w h e n it fa iled to p ro v id e O p p o n g w ith v a lid a tio n o f th e d e b t w ith in f

iv e d a y s o f

its in itia l c o m m u n ic a tio n . E ven as s um i ng thatW el l s Far go’ s s ubs t i tut i on i n the for ecl os ur e ac t i on coul d s om ehow be des cr i bed as an att empt t o col l ecton the debt , § 1692g di d notr equi r e an a ddi t i onal v a lid a tio n n o tice f

ro m W e lls F a rg o b e c a u se , as w e h a v e a lre a d yd isc u ss e d , the re q u isite v ali d ati o n n o ti ce reg ard ing the s am e d eb t had alread yb ee n issue d in the fo rec losu re compl ai ntm or e than one y earear l i er . See Senft l e v. L andau, 390 F. Supp. 2d 463, 473 (D . M d . 2 0 0 5 ); N icho ls v. B yrd, 43 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 6 (D . N ev . 2 0 0 6 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.