Jump to content

Including the OC in a FDCPA suit


Recommended Posts

Is there anything that precludes one from including the OC in a suit against their CA for violations? The CA is an agent of the principle--the OC. The OC is therefore liable for the actions of the principle, correct? So..would I be able to sue both the OC and the CA feach for $1000 statutory damages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything that precludes one from including the OC in a suit against their CA for violations? The CA is an agent of the principle--the OC. The OC is therefore liable for the actions of the principle, correct? So..would I be able to sue both the OC and the CA feach for $1000 statutory damages?

If the CA is a principle of the OC, then NEITHER of them are covered under the FDCPA.

For example, Chase Credit Card has its own subsidiary collection agency, its called Chase Collections - they call and are abusive, AND they are not covered under FDCPA.

1692a(a)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. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 808(6), such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include --

(A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor;

(B)any person while acting as a debt collector for another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the person acting as a debt collector does so only for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if the principal business of such person is not the collection of debts;

© any officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties;

(D) any person while serving or attempting to serve legal process on any other person in connection with the judicial enforcement of any debt;

(E) any nonprofit organization which, at the request of consumers, performs bona fide consumer credit counseling and assists consumers in the liquidation of their debts by receiving payments from such consumers and distributing such amounts to creditors; and

(F) any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (i) is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation or a bona fide escrow arrangement; (ii) concerns a debt which was originated by such person; (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person; or (iv) concerns a debt obtained by such person as a secured party in a commercial credit transaction involving the creditor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the AND in 1692(a)(B).

They must be

1) Related by common ownership

2) Not regularly in the business of collecting debts

So unless by person (which appears 5 times in that sentence) they mean the person they are collecting for (the OC), they would be covered by the FDCPA. It's a bit confusing because they clearly use person with two different definitions in that section. So which person are they talking about the 3rd time? Not an English major here.

Generally you cannot include the OC unless they represent themselves as a debt collector by using a different name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JDBs have been found liable for the acts of their attorneys or CAs under the FDCPA.

There is case law in the district courts supporting a negligence cause of action. i.e., that the OC owes a duty of care to its debtor to act in a lawful manner, including hiring collectors, so that it may be found liable in negligence ( as opposed to the FDCPA) for FDCPA-violating CAs. It is not a slamdunk, and requires more thought than an FDCPA claim, but worth the thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.