6th USCCA Appeal Rules Foreclosures are Debt Collection under FDCPA and Attorneys Must Comply

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 7:43 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: 6th USCCA Appeal Rules Foreclosures are Debt Collection under FDCPA and Attorneys Must Comply

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Monday handed down an opinion that defined mortgage foreclosure actions as “debt collection” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), reversing a lower court decision.

In Glazer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, et. al., the appellate panel said that third parties initiating foreclosure actions must comply with the provisions of the FDCPA.

The case was brought by plaintiff Glazer after he inherited a home that still had an outstanding and active mortgage serviced by Chase. After six missed payments, Chase engaged with law firm Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey Co., LPA (RACJ) to begin foreclosure proceedings.

In a complicated twist indicative of the time, Chase did not own the mortgage in question. In fact, the bank had not even originated it. The loan was owned by Fannie Mae and Chase had been assigned as the servicer from the originator. When RACJ moved to foreclose, it represented as owner of the loan Chase.

When Glazer asked for verification that Chase was the owner, he claims RACJ did not comply, prompting a lawsuit seeking FDCPA damages. A district judge in Ohio sided with Chase and RACJ and dismissed the case, which Glazer appealed.

The Sixth Circuit panel said Monday that Chase was not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA:

…we hold that mortgage foreclosure is debt collection under the, Act. Lawyers who meet the general definition of a “debt collector” must comply with, the FDCPA when engaged in mortgage foreclosure. And a lawyer can satisfy that definition if his principal business purpose is mortgage foreclosure or if he “regularly” performs this function. In this case, the district court held that RACJ was not engaged in debt collection when it sought to foreclose on the property. That decision was erroneous, and the judgment must be reversed.

The case will now go back to the lower court for further consideration.

Glazer v. Chase.pdf

Author: timothymccandless

I have spent most of my professional life helping people who were being taken advantage of by systems they did not fully understand. As an attorney, I represented consumers against predatory lending practices and worked in elder law protecting seniors from fraud. My family lost $239,145 to identity theft, which became the foundation for my seniorgard.onlime and deepened my commitment to financial education. Since 2008, I have maintained a blog at timothymccandless.wordpress.com providing free financial education. Not behind a paywall. Free, because financial literacy should not cost money. I trade with real money using the exact strategy described in this book. My current positions: Pfizer at $16,480 deployed generating $77,900 per year net. Verizon at $29,260 deployed generating $51,000 per year net. Combined: 293% annualized pace. These are my only active positions. Not cherry-picked. View all posts by timothymccandless