Tag Archives: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

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

BREAKING NEWS! SCUMBAG EX-FORECLOSURE MILL ATTORNEY IN CONGRESS TRYING TO AMEND THE FDCPA TO EXEMPT ATTORNEYS FROM LIABILITY!

BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED — 

Three items just crossed my desk that you should be aware of:

FIRST:

Congressman David Trott (of the foreclosure mill law firm Trott & Trott) is “hot to Trott” this legislative session, again trying to proffer amendments to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt attorneys from liability.  Here is a pdf downloadable copy of this scumbag’s bill (sponsored only by him): H.R. 1849 (FDCPA Amendments, 2017).

The language speaks for itself and you should be speaking out against it!   Call your Congressperson and Senator immediately and tell them NOT to support this bill.  This bill takes all of the fairness out of debt collection and once again attempts to make it easier for attorneys to break the law!

SECOND: 

If you are facing Bank of America in court during your foreclosure proceeding, you should know that:

  1. Bank of America will likely produce a “robo-witness” to testify against you at trial.

This reporter has just learned from inside sources that Bank of America flies its designated key witnesses to Dallas, Texas to participate in “mock trials”, both jury and non-jury, to run its key “witnesses” through the proceedings to educate them as to what to say and how to say it in order to avoid scrutiny in cross examination.

2.  Bank of America has a “stable” of these “robo-witnesses” who spend little time looking at actual files (potentially the day before they give testimony, or the day of in some cases), working on actual case loads for a considerable length of time in order to gain the experience necessary to truthfully testify that they have actual, personal knowledge of the bank’s business records.

This reporter has further learned that witnesses are ostracized, punished and/or demoted or transferred to an administrative position within the BofA banking structure if they lose their credibility by failing to help outside counsel win their foreclosure case too many times.  Thus, it is reasonably certain that if Bank of America has a stable of whores who fabricate and embellish the truth on the witness stand, it is likely other banks are doing this too and the homeowner’s counsel should focus on the witnesses’ actual training, including time spent in front of a mock jury learning to adequately “testify” (which may have repercussions if they don’t adequately testify) to screw homeowners out of their homes!

Not only are the business records and the personal knowledge of them at risk as testimony, but the process by which these “employees” who do nothing but roam the country on a minute’s notice and do nothing but testify at trials in favor of Bank of America, should be impeached by further cross-examination and scrutiny of their real training … including, WHO trained them, HOW they were trained, HOW they are punished if they don’t “hold up” in court and WHERE they are trained.  These people cannot be believed and this is just one more reason homeowners need to have this information in their arsenal to “fight the good fight”.

NOTE: The people that attended last weekend’s Foreclosure Defense Workshop in Orlando, Florida know more than what you know.  If you didn’t attend, you didn’t find out about our new “secret tactical weapon” that will not only potentially “shut down” any foreclosure case, but force investigations by state bar associations all across the country of the parties responsible for furthering the fraud brought upon the courts across America in 99.9% of these cases! 

Knowledge is power!

Remember the saying, “My people perish for lack of knowledge”

Don’t be one of those people.  “Study to show thyself approved!”

God’s Blessings to you all!

and THIRD: 

Nationstar Mortgage LLC has changed its name to “Mr. Cooper”:

 

Mr. Cooper?  Seriously?  This sounds like the pedophile down the street.  It’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood.

We are also learning that Select Portfolio Servicing has changed its name to “EXCELERAS”!   If you have received notice of this, please email it to me at cloudedtitles@gmail.com.

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

U.S. 9TH CIRCUIT RULES ROBINS HAS ARTICLE 3 STANDING!

BREAKING NEWS — 

For those of you that haven’t been keeping track of the differences of opinion between the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Spokeo v. Robins case, the 9th Circuit panel has issued an opinion that the Plaintiff (Robins) did in fact allege a “concrete injury”.  I posited this dilemma in my book FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures to some extent.  Now it appears that the 9th Circuit’s holding played in fact off of the Big Top’s decision, which was narrow, wherein a violation of the FCRA (according to this decision), an acronym for the Fair Credit Reporting Act, was enough to include this in an FDCPA action to establish that when servicers (who act as lenders) wrongfully put information on your credit report or in the alternative, debt collectors report things to the credit bureaus that are known to be false (or wrongfully reported by servicers during a period of time wherein a Qualified Written Request is pending), prevents the consumer from moving forward by hampering their credit scores, which results in future credit damage, which is an actionable injury, enough to establish Article III standing.

As you may remember, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a May 16, 2017 ruling declaring that the 9th Circuit failed to address whether the statutory provisions at issue were established to protect Robins’s concrete interests, as opposed to purely procedural issues. The 9th Circuit responded that the FCRA was created to protect consumers’ interests in mandating that credit reporting agencies issue truthful and accurate credit reports, which affect a consumer’s future lifestyle changes, the ability to obtain credit and employment potential.

The 9th Circuit remanded the case back down to the Central District of California for further action.  For those of you in the 9th Circuit states, you should be jumping for joy, because the little guy has won another round.  To see the opinion, click the link: Robins v Spokeo Inc, 9th App Cir No 11-56843 (August 15, 2017)

It stands to reason that we will be discussing this in more detail in our third of four FDCPA webinars, coming soon to the CloudedTitles.com website.

In the meantime, for those of you continuing to fight foreclosures pro se, you may wish to pay attention to the following and inquire about attending our upcoming foreclosure defense workshop in Orlando, Florida:

Download the Registration Form here: FDW ORLANDO REGISTRATION FORM

3 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, webinar