Appeals Court Rules Foreclosures are “Debt Collection” Under FDCPA

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Monday handed down an opinion that defined mortgage foreclosure actions as “debt collection” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), reversing a lower court decision.

In Glazer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, et. al., the appellate panel said that third parties initiating foreclosure actions must comply with the provisions of the FDCPA.

The case was brought by plaintiff Glazer after he inherited a home that still had an outstanding and active mortgage serviced by Chase. After six missed payments, Chase engaged with law firm Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey Co., LPA (RACJ) to begin foreclosure proceedings.

In a complicated twist indicative of the time, Chase did not own the mortgage in question. In fact, the bank had not even originated it. The loan was owned by Fannie Mae and Chase had been assigned as the servicer from the originator. When RACJ moved to foreclose, it represented as owner of the loan Chase.

When Glazer asked for verification that Chase was the owner, he claims RACJ did not comply, prompting a lawsuit seeking FDCPA damages. A district judge in Ohio sided with Chase and RACJ and dismissed the case, which Glazer appealed.

The Sixth Circuit panel said Monday that Chase was not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. But its decision noted that RACJ was, writing:

…we hold that mortgage foreclosure is debt collection under the, Act. Lawyers who meet the general definition of a “debt collector” must comply with, the FDCPA when engaged in mortgage foreclosure. And a lawyer can satisfy that definition if his principal business purpose is mortgage foreclosure or if he “regularly” performs this function. In this case, the district court held that RACJ was not engaged in debt collection when it sought to foreclose on the property. That decision was erroneous, and the judgment must be reversed.

The case will now go back to the lower court for further consideration.

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Collection Law Firms, Collection Laws and Regulations, FDCPA, Featured Post, Mortgage Collections .

×
Subscribe to never miss important news and resources from insideARM.com:

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar todd bean says:

    The only shocking thing about this decision is that it had to be appealed. All you have to do is read the FDCPA (something we all know Ameripay has not done) and use the definitions in the FDCPA to know an attorney that regularly attempts to collect consumer debt falls under the FDCPA.

    I had a pro-se consumer email me yesterday (order attached) that had to go all the way to the Wyoming Supreme Court just to get two lower courts to understand an arbitration survivability clause against Capitol One.

  • avatar todd bean says:

    And FOC to save you any detective work or Jessie saying where is the case, it’s

    James v Cap One, WY Supreme Court, s-12-0274

  • avatar todd bean says:

    That’s PRO-SE litigant, in the Supreme Court, James, just for your records since debtors just bump their gums.

  • avatar jessie-gomez says:

    The bank should have kick that low life deadbeat to the streets when they went 2 payments late. That is what wrong now you got all the low life deadbeat consumers riding the system. That low life knew who finance and who they were making payments to.

  • avatar todd bean says:

    Oh Jessie, you and your validity of the underlying debt argument. You’re such a rascal.

Leave a Reply