Tag Archives: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

FDCPA CAN STILL APPLY TO NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is the author of The FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures … and posits the following for educational purposes and for your consideration in the paradigm shift that has now become the focus of thousands of consumers.

I’ve noticed an uptick in the number of pro-bank/pro-debt collector law firm postings regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest narrow ruling in the Obduskey case (out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals).  I love how these folks like to “pat themselves on the back” for their observations that non-judicial foreclosure proceedings can still be business as usual, despite the caveats their posts now contain.  Why on earth would they post “caveats” to the debt collection industry (which includes law firms like the one Dennis Obduskey filed an FDCPA action against) if they were so sure of themselves in being able to just walk all over borrowers they claim are in default?

Despite the fact the nation’s highest court resolved the federal circuit split on whether non-judicial foreclosures can continue as “business as usual”, the ruling was “narrow in scope” regarding the enforcement of security interests as defined under 15 USC § 1692f(6), which is what the Court focused on in its decision: Obduskey v McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)

What Congress intended … 

Creditors used to love the idea that they could open up a can of “whoop ass” on debtors any time they felt like it, even late-night, repetitive or threatening phone calls (“I know where you live” and “your mommy’s going to jail” and “we’re going to sue you if you don’t pay” or “we’re going to bomb your office building if you don’t come down here and pay this bill” or “you !@)#(%^!”.)  The caveats I’m seeing in these law blog posts still make reference to the fact that the latest FDCPA-related ruling DOESN’T mean “business as usual”.  It simply means that debt collectors trying to enforce deeds of trusts have to be extra careful NOT to step over that well-defined line of intended “abuses” that do in fact, fall under the FDCPA!

Enforcing a recorded security interest (deed of trust, security deed, HELOC, etc.) in a non-judicial state means just that.  If a third party (the trustee, NOT MERS) intends on using the terms of the security instrument to act as the third party in taking back collateral, the collection activity has to specifically and purely involve that process.  The narrow ruling still prohibits abusive debt collection practices, whether or not a non-judicial foreclosure is still the intended outcome.  The abusive debt collection practices fall under 15 USC 1692d and 15 USC 1692e, as well as portions of 15 USC 1692f (1) through (5) and (6)(B)(C) and (7) and (8).  See here for clarification: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 09-1996

If you have a case … you have a case … 

Every time the debt collection industry scores a narrow victory, they pontificate their accomplishments as soon as humanly possible, almost to the point of bragging rights (see, I told you so … lemme rub your nose in it) kind of stuff.  This is typical of the legal profession, especially the kind that can operate unchecked when it comes to carrying out enforcement actions.

One of the more remarkable things I find is that all non-judicial foreclosures are assumed to be legal unless otherwise challenged.  One of the things I put forward in the book (mentioned above) is that careful analysis of the debt collection laws needs to be strictly adhered to (the letter of the law), which you are attempting to assert was violated.

How the “chain of title” points to potential suspect violations of 15 USC 1692e(5) … 

Here’s where the latest ammo we’ve been sharing on the C&E comes into play.  Cancellation and expungement (C&E) actions are used to disable and destroy the authority these debt collectors rely on to even enforce a security instrument.  Under “False or misleading representations” (§ 807 of the FDCPA), section 5 prohibits false, deceptive or misleading representation in threatening “to take any action that cannot legally be taken” … which would mean to me that if you could strip away the lies contained within the assignments that generally precede the initiation of a non-judicial foreclosure action through a C&E, the authority of the debt collector would be void and the debt collector’s representations would then be false and misleading, which IS a violation of the FDCPA!

Champagne budget … Beer Belly Pocketbook! 

A C&E action is definitely a cheaper way to wage war on an unsuspecting servicer (who is really behind the scenes of the debt collection/non-judicial enforcement proceeding), stripping away whatever rights it thinks it has to steal your house on behalf of party or parties unknown (which could be Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, lest we hold the GSEs unaccountable in the end) than waging an all-out FDCPA battle in federal court, which costs substantially more money.  Try to keep the emotions in check for the moment while I finish.

The document the servicers are creating is the assignment of deed of trust (much like the assignment of mortgage), which they claim gives them the authority (on behalf of the alleged “lender”) to appoint a substitute trustee to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure.  Do you have a contract with the mortgage loan servicer?   (Didn’t think so.)  However, servicers have Limited Powers of Attorney, which they claim give them the authority to do whatever they want, including wading into the shark-infested waters of violations created under the FDCPA.  Strip away their authority under the assignment as void … they’re like “chum in the water”.

This is why I’m releasing a two-day training video DVD set with the latest book by attorney Al West and myself, The C&E on Steroids! in very short order.  What better a way to deal with America’s tainted real property records than to fight the good fight head-on in state court, rather than wage a flimsy, unsupported war in federal court without first demonstrating the ultra vires behavior of the trustee thanks to a phony assignment, which you’ve knocked out FIRST in a C&E action!

2 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW A C & E FITS INTO THE SYSTEM OF THINGS!

(NOT-SO-BREAKING-NEWS — OP-ED) — The poster of this blog is NOT an attorney; however, he works with attorneys to achieve positive results in creating potential legal scenarios that could stop foreclosures dead in their tracks! 

There are times when the legal system “pats itself on the back” and times when it pauses to reflect on past issues.  The party discussed in this case happens to be one Jorge Porter, a gentleman I was introduced to long ago by the late Coral Gables, Florida foreclosure defense attorney John Herrera, who sadly passed away long before his time.   It never ceases to amaze me that “the system of things” that runs the legal profession and the manner in which case law is established and made available to the public comes at a time when it’s convenient for the banking industry and not for consumers.

Such is the case here, where it’s taken several months for a Third DCA Florida case to reveal itself:

CitiMortgage, Inc v Jorge Porter et al, 3D17-2469 (Dec 19, 2018)

Bogus documents?  You bet!  Suspect criminal behavior?  You bet.  The Appellate Court even used the term “criminal” in its ruling!   There are some great Florida cases cited in this ruling, which reflect on past cases where fraudulent documents were introduced into the case, relied upon, to the detriment of the parties bringing these suspect documents into court!

Then surprisingly, months later, the legal profession decided to approach this subject matter, with a blog posting:

Lexology Article on Porter Case (Mar 21, 2019)

When one reads the court’s order … and then reads the Lexology post, it pins the misbehavior directly on the borrower, Jorge Porter!  This also goes to show you that “two wrongs don’t make a right”!  Filing administrative crap in the land records like Deeds of Reconveyance, Substitutions of Trustee, Satisfactions of Mortgage, Land Patents, U.C.C.-1 Financing Statements and the like is NOT the way to solve your problems if you’re facing foreclosure or even default.  Because the Florida Third DCA pointed it out, the appellates did it for a reason.  You cannot file bogus crap in the land records to defeat a lien interest yourself!  We have a process to legally deal with the system of things when bogus documents are suspect.

It’s called a cancellation and expungement action (C & E)!

We wrote a book about it (see below).  No one else has done this because no one has really come up with any viable solution to challenge these documents even though state statutes allow for it.  Not only that, we’ve figured out a way to “make it personal”, which means we’ve figured out a way to by-pass the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and go after the lawyers, document mills, notaries and title companies who caused this bogus crap to be recorded in the land records in the first place!  All one has to do is go searching in the land records for assignments and I will prove my point 9 times out of 10!   You see, the recent Obduskey decision by the United States Supreme Court doesn’t address ethical violations committed by attorneys for the banks when they rely on bogus, criminally-conspired-and-drafted, fraudulently-recorded documents!  The Obduskey case also does NOT protect the robosigners and notaries whose names appear on these fraudulent documents!

Thus, California attorney Al West and I put together an intensive, two-day class to educate you as to HOW a C & E action is created, researched, analyzed, drafted, filed and executed on!

I’ve blogged about it before, but this case just got under my craw (Jorge Porter should have known better) and I had to share it because when “something is rotten in Denmark” and there are 500-million-plus suspect bogus documents in the land records THAT ARE STILL THERE and STILL CONTINUE TO BE THERE, even AFTER the foreclosure has taken place (some are actually recorded AFTER the foreclosure has taken place … by the very banks doing the foreclosing) … don’t you think you owe it to yourself to research what the “mongoose is to the snake”?

DETAILS ON THE WORKSHOP:

The host hotel has extended the registration deadline until

Friday, March 29th

for those of you wishing to reserve a sleeping room for the event.

The downloadable forms you need to attend are right here:

 LAS VEGAS FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WORKSHOP INFORMATION

Simply book your sleeping room for this event by clicking on this link:

 http://group.doubletree.com/ForeclosureDefense

We got a really great room rate and FREE breakfast buffet!

FREE airport shuttle service to and from Las Vegas McCarran Airport (LAS)!

Seating is limited! (and we mean “limited”)

We have millionaire investors … attorneys … homeowners in litigation …

trusts and LLCs in litigation … real estate agents and brokers … paralegals …

ALL REGISTERED TO ATTEND!

The best part is … DIRTY DOCUMENTS apply to all their cases!

You can pay for your attendance fees by visiting THIS LINK!

Once you’ve paid your attendance fee, click here:

FDW REGISTRATION FORM_LAS VEGAS_2019

to download your Registration Form!

Fill it out, scan it and email it HERE!

Make sure you pay attention to all pull-down menus and

related cart processing information!

We have a secure website and we do not store cardholder information!

Everyone attending gets handouts and a copy of the brand new book:

You don’t have much time though.  

The date of this workshop is fast approaching! 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, workshop

FDCPA CHALLENGED IN NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES: U.S. SUPREME COURT TESTIMONY

(BREAKING NEWS) —

Here’s a rare treat … oral transcripts from Dennis Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP:

obduskey v mccarthy & holthus llp, scotus no 17-1307_oral transcripts of supreme court proceedings

(OP-ED) —

We’ve been waiting on the arguments here, because how the FDCPA is interpreted when it comes to foreclosures in non-judicial (Deed of Trust) states is at issue and has been in conflict among the federal circuits as to whether the enforcement of a security instrument (the actual deed of trust) constitutes the “collection of a debt”.  The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (where the case originated) says enforcement of a security instrument is not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it does not constitute debt collection.

Part of the problem here, is that it is and it isn’t (enforcement of a collection of debt) but an enforcement by the Trustee to sell property which is collateral for a debt (the note).  McCarthy & Holthus LLP is a known law firm that is part of a nationwide network that foreclosures on property wherein the borrower is claimed to be in default because of non-payment on the actual obligation (the Note).

Other courts have narrowly interpreted the matter in both ways.  This is where the conflict has occurred and this is why SCOTUS is hearing the matter.  If the Trustee is only attempting to satisfy the Lender’s need to recover the collateral that was pledged and does nothing more than use the contractual obligation of publication and sale to satisfy the terms of the security instrument (deed of trust) … that’s one thing.  The second the Trustee steps over the line and retains a law firm to enforce the terms of the security instrument and demand “payment” of a “sum certain”, THEN the attempt to collect a debt IS IN FACT, where misrepresentations occur, which would constitute a violation of the FDCPA!  My non-lawyer wisdom tells me to let YOU be the judge here!

If the law firm has all of its ducks in a row, that’s one thing.  But in this case, the argument tends to indicate it didn’t, which is why Dennis Obduskey filed suit.   This case represents one of the biggest challenges to non-judicial foreclosures in the United States; thus, this is worth the read if you are contemplating such an action.  Enjoy!

P.S.: The same amount of federal and state conflict has occurred with the MERS® System and the way the courts have treated it.  Why SCOTUS won’t hear those relative arguments may change.  For now, that issue is at a standstill.

8 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

THIRD U.S. CIRCUIT ISSUES PRECEDENTIAL RULING IN FDCPA CASE AGAINST MCM … REVERSED AND REMANDED!

BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED — 

This ruling just out of the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals:

CLASS ACTION SUIT REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS! 

Schultz v Midland Credit Mgmt Inc et al, 3rd App Cir No 17-2244 (Sep 24, 2018)_Precedential

Midland Credit Management sent Robert and Donna Schulz separate dunning letters which misstated the rights of the debt collector in reporting a forgiveness of debt as required by IRS regulations, which only applies if the debt is over $600.

The FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) specifically prohibits a debt collector from using “false, deceptive or misleading representation in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e

The District Court had jurisdiction, but as many U.S. District Court judges do, they favor debt collectors and not debtors and often rule against the debtors, misinterpreting the law or in the alternative, the intent of the law.

The 14-page ruling is an educational tool for both litigants and their lawyers.  Understand that MCM knew or should have known better.

This is also a clear and classic example of a STATUTORY VIOLATION as described in the 10-part series GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST!

Also, read the footnote on Page 8, where “multiple discharges of indebtedness of less than $600 are not required to be aggregated.” 26 C.F.R. §1.6050P-1(a)(2).  That means that the debt collector can’t total up all of the separate debts (even if they add up to more than $600) and use language in their communication to the debtor which violated the foregoing statute or code. Debt collection, as imparted and regulated by the FDCPA, sets specific standards for what constitutes a violation of statute.  Understand that the FDCPA provides a remedy, at law.  The federal court has jurisdiction because the law is a federal law.  There are state debt collection laws that could have been cited in the federal case along with the FDCPA and the Court would have had to apply the applicable State Laws to the case as they were intended by the legislature to be followed.  When this doesn’t happen at the state level, we have appellate courts to do our bidding.  Just because the judge misinterpreted the law doesn’t mean he should be taken off the bench.

The system of things only applies to his removal if he does something morally or ethically egregious that cannot be resolved by anything other than attacking his bond for provable damages.

I don’t care if he’s a senior judge, like a lot of them are on the federal bench.  Also take to heart that the attorneys litigating FDCPA claims these days like to do class actions because there’s more in it for them in attorney’s fees.

However, also note that the special witness in the class action (the Schultz’s) could get up to $25,000 for their testimony in leading the class action.  Think about that in part when you apply “the system of things” to statutory violations!

Stay tuned for PART 10 of GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST!   It’s sure to be a doozey!

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

U.S. NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSES FDCPA DISMISSAL; CAN’T USE STATE LAWSUIT TO CONFOUND FEDERAL LAW!

BREAKING NEWS — 

While not presidential, the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a Nevada FDCPA case, declaring in part:

The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought against a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The panel held that a debt collector cannot avoid liability under the FDCPA by obtaining the debtor’s lawsuit through a state court writ of execution.

The panel concluded that such a procedure frustrates the Act’s purpose and is thus conflict- preempted. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings.

To read the case, click here: Arrellano v Clark Co Coll Svc LLC et al, 9th App Cir No 16-15467 (Nov 17, 2017)

OP-ED —

Sadly, too many U.S. District Court judges are quick to dismiss debtor claims.  They appear to treat these types of actions as if the debtor is trying to escape debt, which in many cases, is NOT the point.

The first point here is: The debt collector bought its own lawsuit from the Clark County, Nevada Sheriff for $250 in order to avoid the appearance of an FDCPA violation.

The second point here is: The debt collector cannot give the alleged debtor a 30-day notice to dispute the validity of the debt (or any portion thereof) while engaged in litigation that requires a 20-day response (answer).

See Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon, PC, 591 F. 3d 130 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2010 – Google Schola (a Connecticut-originated debt collection case) for further clarification on the improper use of lawsuits).

In my opinion, the 9th Circuit did the right thing.

COMING SOON: FDCPA Webinar #3 … Class Actions in FDCPA Claims!  

ALSO COMING SOON: Chain of Title Assessment (COTA) Online Webinar … a one-day, online webinar workshop (divided into (5) 90-minute sessions (all presented on the same day).

Sit in the comfort of your home at your computer and learn how to analyze chain of title!

Learn how to recognize chain of title issues and what the purpose of the various legal remedies are to combat them!

Save time and money by learning to avoid making foolish investments in property that will require exorbitant legal fees to “fix” the title!

Learn how to do COTAs to do your own legal research to save money on attorney’s fees in case development!

Learn how to do COTAs to make money in the future helping others in their “good fight”!

… and BTW, Happy Thanksgiving!  Blessings to you and yours for your health, wisdom and prosperity.

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED