Opinion ID: 2561867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rawlings is a Collection Agency.

Text: Rawlings's principal argument is that it is not subject to the registration requirement because it does not collect debts. To the extent this argument relies on federal law, however, it is misconceived. Because regulation of a collection agency under chapter 443B only requires that a person like Rawlingsoffer[ ] to undertake or hold[ oneself out as being able to undertake or does undertake to collect for another person, claims or money due on accounts or other forms of indebtedness, HRS § 443B-1 (1993) (emphasis added), for a fee, it is not required that the collection agency at issue collect debts. Rawlings has not argued that it does not collect claims or money due on accounts, but only that it does not collect debts. [11] Furthermore Rawlings did not rebut this argument in its reply brief, although it was clearly raised by Plaintiffs in their answering brief. Rawlings's misreading of our statute appears to be based on an erroneous supposition that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) has the same coverage as our law, which is evidenced by Rawlings's extensive reliance in its briefings on federal caselaw interpreting the FDCPA. Hawaii's law defines collection agency more broadly than the federal law, which regulates entities it defines as debt collectors. Whereas a collection agency in our law includes persons who collect claims or money due on accounts, the FDCPA definition of debt collector is limited to collection of debts. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (2006) (The term `debt collector' means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. (Emphases added.)). The statutory structure of the Hawai`i Revised Statutes reinforces the view that HRS chapter 443B is broader in its coverage that the federal statute. Hawai`i law contains a separate chapter entitled collection practices, HRS chapter 480D, that is intended to cover collection activities by debt collectors in collecting consumer debts. HRS § 480D-1 (1993). Unlike chapter 443B, chapter 480D specifically covers debt collectors, which are defined as any person, who is not a collection agency, and who in the regular course of business collects or attempts to collect consumer debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to the collector. HRS § 480D-2 (1993) (emphasis added). Both chapters were passed by the legislature in the same act. 1987 Haw. Sess. L. Act 191, at 423-30. The differences between the two chapters provide a clear indication that the legislature intended the regulation of collection agencies in HRS chapter 443B to be distinct from its regulation of debt collectors. Therefore, federal law interpreting the latter term cannot be interpreted to cover collection agencies. [12] The critical distinction between our law and the federal law is that our statute is targeted towards those who collect claims or money due on accounts or other forms of indebtedness while the federal law is limited to those who collect debts. The terms claims and money due on accounts are not defined in HRS chapter 443B and, as such, should carry their ordinary meanings. It is apparent that Rawlings, was collecting claims that HMSA had against Plaintiffs. [13] Even Rawlings characterized its collection activity in this manner, stating in its opening brief that it had sent the Plaintiffs' attorney notice that HMSA was asserting a claim for the benefits HMSA had paid on behalf of each [Plaintiff] for the injuries sustained as a result of the third-parties' actions. (Emphasis added.)