Jump to content

Texas Finance Code apply to OC's?


Recommended Posts

Okay so I know I am reaching here but I'm just curious as to how much, (if any), of the Texas Finance Code actually applies to an original creditor?

I started wondering this on another thread and now that I keep reading the TFC I am really wondering. What do you guys think?


§ 392.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(5) "Debt collection" means an action, conduct, or

practice in collecting, or in soliciting for collection, consumer

debts that are due or alleged to be due a creditor.

(6) "Debt collector" means a person who directly or

indirectly engages in debt collection and includes a person who

sells or offers to sell forms represented to be a collection system,

device, or scheme intended to be used to collect consumer debts.

(7) "Third-party debt collector" means a debt

collector, as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6), but does not

include an attorney collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of

and in the name of a client unless the attorney has nonattorney

employees who:

(A) are regularly engaged to solicit debts for

collection; or

(B) regularly make contact with debtors for the

purpose of collection or adjustment of debts.

Okay, so from this section we have our definitions. Now if you continue reading through the TFC sometimes "third-party collector" is used and sometimes "debt collector" is used. This section here:



is what alot of people use to disprove the theory that the TFC applies to oc's because it only says "Third-party debt collector." I won't argue that point. The remainder of Chapter 392 seems to deal with any type of debt collector because it uses the language "debt collector," as defined in the first quote. If you keep reading starting here at

you might start to notice what I am rambling on about. It gives the consumer rights concering telephone calls, harassment, etc. that I did not know we had against OC's except for maybe under the FTC.

What do ya'll think? Am I reaching here? I'm just truly curious in my quest to become a TFC expert. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm doped up on Demerol, so this may sound assish without meaning to. My higher brain functions are non existent at this point. IMHO, I think it would be beyond a stretch of the imagination to apply the TFC to an OC concerning debt collection. However, I would have to re-read the subsection concerning telephone calls, harassment, et al. If I remember correctly, you may be able to apply the deceptive trade practices amendment to them, but like I said, high on Demerol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Texas, OC's are covered under the Texas Finance Code as well, pretty much any company that tries to collect in this wonderful state is covered under the Texas Finance Code. Its great because when they violate, they are covered for treble damages as well.

please note, i am not currently high on any drug....unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected then. My understanding was it only applied to 3rd party collectors, which an in-house collector would not be considered third party.

Ah well. I posed the question to my naca.net attorney and he gave me a very long pause before saying he'd look into it.

You want some. I just got a brand new bottle of 90.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah there is a part that addresses "Third Party Collectors," and then there is a part that just addresses "debt collectors," and the definitions of both of those are clearly laid out. I didn't think the "third party collectors" would cover an OC. Focus read the defintion and then the 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6) definition. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TFC 392 applies to any person pursuing debt collection activities and includes OCs and in many cases, even attorneys.

I have been challenged by arrogant OCs who think they can get away with murder just like they do elsewhere... but so far I won in court several times against some of the big banks.

The issue has been resolved by the Dallas and San Antonio courts of appeals. See Smith v. Heard, 980 S.W.2d 693, 697 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1998, pet. denied); Monroe v. Frank, 936 S.W.2d 654, 659-660 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1996, writ dism’d w.o.j.).

You can find explanations in layman's terms from the Attorney General's website:


or from the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to O'Connor's Texas Causes of Action, 392.101 and 202 apply to 3rd party debt collectors only and not to OCs.

I personally did not have this problem once I showed 392 applies to OCs as well.

As much as I like O'Connor's... I have found a few errors once in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.