Opinion ID: 179062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Debt Collector

Text: Cannon contends that it is not a debt collector for purposes of this litigation, because in this instance it was only enforcing a security interest in the 1 “The term ‘consumer’ means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). -6- underlying collateral securing the debt. Cannon claims the FDCPA does not regulate the enforcement of a security interest through non-judicial foreclosure actions. In contrast, Maynard contends Cannon is a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA by regularly collecting debts owed to another. We agree with Maynard. Whatever the merits of its argument concerning non-judicial foreclosures, Cannon admitted it was a debt collector for purposes of this case. In its answer to Maynard’s complaint, Cannon conceded it was a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA. Aplt. App., Vol. I, p. 36. And in the communications with Maynard at the time of the foreclosure, Cannon understood the FDCPA to apply and acted accordingly. For instance, Cannon included various notices required by the FDCPA and followed the other procedural requirements of the Act. At his deposition, Bryan Cannon testified his firm does only “collections and foreclosures,” Id., p. 319:22–320:4; 202:16–25, confirming, at the very least, Cannon regularly and principally attempts to collect debts. Later in seeking summary judgment on Maynard’s claims, Mr. Cannon conceded he and his firm “already admitted that he is a debt collector under the FDCPA, and that his actions in regards to his correspondence in the foreclosure action against the Plaintiff was covered by that Federal Statute.” Id., p. 88. We are thus satisfied Cannon is a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA. -7-