Source: https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2019/03/the-supreme-court-032019
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:39:37+00:00

Document:
Obduskey v. McCarthy v. Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., imposes a number of requirements upon “debt collector[s].” This includes prohibiting debt collectors from using or threatening violence, §1692d, making false, deceptive, or misleading representations, §1692e, and as relevant here, requiring that if a consumer disputes the amount of a debt, that debt collectors “cease collection” until they obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the debtor, §1692g(b). All of those requirements apply to those who fall under the general definition of a “debt collector” under the statute. §1692a(6). The Act also says, however, that “for the purposes of 1692f(6),” which has very limited prohibitions, “[the] term [debt collector] also includes any person . . . in any business the principle purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests.” Id. This last definition includes businesses engaged in nothing more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. The question posed by this case was whether a “debt collector” in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings was only subject to the narrow requirements of §1692f(6), or was also subject to the numerous other requirements detailed in the Act. Here, the District Court dismissed a homeowner’s FDCPA suit against a law firm carrying out nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on the basis it was not a “debt collector” under the broader requirements under the Act. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Court today also affirmed, holding that but for §1692f(6), those who engage in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are not debt collectors within the meaning of the Act.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §1692
 §1692
 §1692
 §1692
 §1692
 §1692
 §1692