Opinion ID: 2731117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Texas Debt Collections Act (TDCA).

Text: Under the TDCA, a debt collector “may not use threats, coercion, or attempts to coerce that employ [certain enumerated] practices . . . [including] threatening to take an action prohibited by law.” Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.301(a)(8). In addition, “a debt collector may not use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs [certain enumerated] practices . . . [including] misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt.” Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.304(a)(8). The Langlois argue that Wells Fargo is a “debt collector” subject to the prohibitions against unfair debt collection practices under the TDCA. They also assert that Wells Fargo violated the TDCA’s prohibition on “threatening to take an action prohibited by law,” Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.301(a)(8), by threatening to foreclose on the Langlois’ home when Wells Fargo did “not have legal authority to foreclose.” The Langlois also claim Wells Fargo violated the TDCA’s prohibition on “misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt,” Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.304(a)(8), by consistently misrepresenting the amount of the Langlois’ debt. The issue here turns on whether Wells Fargo may be properly considered a “debt collector” under the TDCA. In the district court, Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment on the TDCA claim, asserting that it was not a “debt collector” as defined by the TDCA. The district court held that “Wells Fargo is not a debt collector as defined under the TDCA because there is no evidence that the Langlois were in default when Wells Fargo became the mortgage servicer of the Note.” Accordingly, the district court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment on the TDCA claims. After the district court ruled on the motion for summary judgment―but before the Langlois filed their notice of appeal―this Court adopted a different 10 Case: 13-10914 Document: 00512760569 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/08/2014 No. 13-10914 definition of “debt collector” in mortgage foreclosure cases under the TDCA. In Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 726 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2013), this Court held that a mortgage servicer or assignee “qualifies as a debt collector under the . . . TDCA, irrespective of whether the [borrower’s] mortgage was already in default at the time of its assignment.” Id. at 723. Since the district court reasoned that Wells Fargo was exempt from the TDCA because the Langlois were in default when Wells Fargo became the mortgage servicer of the Note, the district court’s determination is inconsistent with Fifth Circuit precedent. Given this intervening change in the case law, both Wells Fargo and the Langlois agree that the TDCA claims should be remanded to the district court in light of this Court’s holding in Miller. Since Miller adopted a definition of “debt collector” in mortgage foreclosure cases that is inconsistent with the district court’s opinion, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment on the TDCA claims, and remand the TDCA claims so that the district court can adjudicate the Langlois’ TDCA claims on the merits in the first instance.