Jump to content

Attorneys are debt collectors based on launguage change by Congress


isd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Through my investigation, I believe this proves attorneys are debt collectors:

When originally enacted, the FDCPA in 1977 specifically provided that the definition of “debt collector” meant “debt collector, except for an attorney.” This attorney exception was specifically stated in the FDCPA. In 1986, Congress changed this portion of the FDCPA by merely eliminating the attorney exception. The language of “except for an attorney” was taken out. Thus, the phrase “debt collector” became unlimited. Heintz, supra, ruled that attorneys could indeed be debt collectors, because the phrase “debt collector” was not limited. It previously was limited so that it specifically excluded attorneys. But the change in the statute simply eliminated the exception. Thus, the legal principle that “if a word is not limited – then it is not limited” is illustrated by the very history of the FDCPA. The court held that the FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly attempts to collect debts through litigation. Heintz, 514 U.S. at 292, 115 S. Ct 1489

Anyway, hoping so cuz this is what I am basing it on.

ALSO- Did you know that they can't pull your falsely pull your credit report AFTER a lawsuit has been filed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Through my investigation, I believe this proves attorneys are debt collectors:

When originally enacted, the FDCPA in 1977 specifically provided that the definition of “debt collector” meant “debt collector, except for an attorney.” This attorney exception was specifically stated in the FDCPA. In 1986, Congress changed this portion of the FDCPA by merely eliminating the attorney exception. The language of “except for an attorney” was taken out. Thus, the phrase “debt collector” became unlimited. Heintz, supra, ruled that attorneys could indeed be debt collectors, because the phrase “debt collector” was not limited. It previously was limited so that it specifically excluded attorneys. But the change in the statute simply eliminated the exception. Thus, the legal principle that “if a word is not limited – then it is not limited” is illustrated by the very history of the FDCPA. The court held that the FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly attempts to collect debts through litigation. Heintz, 514 U.S. at 292, 115 S. Ct 1489

Anyway, hoping so cuz this is what I am basing it on.

ALSO- Did you know that they can't pull your falsely pull your credit report AFTER a lawsuit has been filed.

It wasn't a blanket exception for attorneys that was included prior to the change either. It was "an attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney in the name of and on behalf of a client." While it was a very broad exception for attorneys, it was not unlimited. They not only had to be licensed as attorneys, they also had to be acting as attorneys. Read FTC v Shaffner for this. IMO, that ruling is potentially important because many state laws regarding debt collectors use the exact same language as the FDCPA and not all have removed the attorney exception.

FYI, attorneys have to follow the FDCPA even during legal proceedings if they fall under the debt collector definition. Many tried to argue otherwise claiming that they were exempt if they were engaging in "purely legal" activities, and the courts soundly shot them down. Translation: If they lie to you during discovery, you should sue them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the plaintiffs attorney s office did a hard check on my credit report after a lawsuit was filed is this legal? If illegal could you point me in the right direction. trying to read these laws is like watching paint dry. I am trying though its a lot of information to absorb in such a short time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a blanket exception for attorneys that was included prior to the change either. It was "an attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney in the name of and on behalf of a client." While it was a very broad exception for attorneys, it was not unlimited. They not only had to be licensed as attorneys, they also had to be acting as attorneys. Read FTC v Shaffner for this. IMO, that ruling is potentially important because many state laws regarding debt collectors use the exact same language as the FDCPA and not all have removed the attorney exception.

FYI, attorneys have to follow the FDCPA even during legal proceedings if they fall under the debt collector definition. Many tried to argue otherwise claiming that they were exempt if they were engaging in "purely legal" activities, and the courts soundly shot them down. Translation: If they lie to you during discovery, you should sue them.

Thanks for that tidbit.

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.