Wake Forest Law Review
7Oct

Fourth Circuit Clarifies Definition of “Debt Collectors,” Affirms Dismissal of Truth in Lending Act Claims

Categories: 4th Cir. Blog Civil Cases
Comments Off on Fourth Circuit Clarifies Definition of “Debt Collectors,” Affirms Dismissal of Truth in Lending Act Claims

paper-trail-1557043

By Mike Stephens

This afternoon, October 7, 2016, the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in the civil case McCray v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claims regarding notice. However, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s decision that two of the defendants, the White Firm and the “Substitute Trustees,” were not “debt collectors” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).

Facts and Procedural History

In October 2005, Renee McCray took out a loan to refinance her house. The loan documents were sold to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”). Wells Fargo was retained to service the loan. After several years of payments, McCray disputed a billing statement in June 2011 and sent Wells Fargo several requests for information regarding the costs contained within the statement. Wells Fargo either failed to respond or did not respond adequately to McCray’s requests. Eventually, McCray stopped making payments after April 2012 and the loan went into default. Wells Fargo employed the White Firm to initiate the foreclosure.

The White Firm sent McCray a letter dated September 28, 2012, notifying McCray that the firm had been retained to begin the foreclosure proceedings on her home. The letter ended by stating, “This is an attempt to collect a debt. This is a communication from a debt collector. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” The White Firm also sent McCray another letter notifying her that the loan was “154 days past due” and that $4,282.91 was needed to cure the default. Members of the White Firm were placed as trustees on the deed of trust and filed a foreclosure action in February 2013, which is still pending. McCray filed suit in 2013, alleging violations of FDCPA and TILA. The district court dismissed four of McCray’s claims and granted summary judgment on the fifth. McCray raised three issues on appeal.

Defendants Were Debt Collectors Subject to the FDCPA’s Regulation

McCray first alleged that the the district court erred in concluding the White Firm and the Substitute Trustees were not “debt collectors” as defined within the FDCPA. McCray argued that the facts contained within the complaint regarding the firm’s letter were sufficient to show that the White Firm “regularly collect[ed] or attempt[ed] to collect debts” that were owed to another, consistent with the definition in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). The White Firm responded that their actions did not qualify them as debt collectors as they never actually sought collection of money because, as the district court concluded, there was no “express demand for payment or specific information about [McCray’s] debt.” The White Firm also argued that their foreclosure action was “incidental to [their] fiduciary obligation,” placing them within an exception in § 1692a(6)(F)(i).

The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal, holding that McCray’s complaint sufficiently alleged that the White Firm were debt collectors and that their actions in initiating the foreclosure constituted debt collection activity for the purposes of the FDCPA. The Court rejected the White Firm’s argument for two reasons. First, the Court held that the FDCPA did not require an “express demand for payment.” Instead, activities “taken in connection with the collection of a debt or in an attempt to collect a debt” are actionable under the FDCPA. Second, the Court held that foreclosure is not merely “incidental,” but instead “central to the trustee’s fiduciary obligation under the deed of trust.” Thus, because McCray’s complaint alleged facts showing the White Firm was retained to collect the loan in default, and because the firm’s letter concluded that it was “an attempt to collect debt,” their actions fell within debt collection activity that is regulated by the FDCPA.

The District Court Properly Dismissed McCray’s TILA Claim

McCray also alleged that the district court wrongfully dismissed her TILA claim against Freddie Mac. McCray argued that Freddie Mac failed to give her notice of its purchase of the loan in violation of § 1641(g). This provision was added by Congress in 2009, which provides that:

not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer.

The district court found that McCray’s complaint failed to allege that Freddie Mac acquired the loan after Congress amended TILA to require notice. Additionally the district court found that McCray received notice of her claim in October 2011 because Wells Fargo sent her a letter notifying her that Freddie Mac was the “investor” on the loan. Because McCray filed suit in 2013 after receiving notice of the TILA claim in October 2011, the district court held, in the alternative, that her claim was barred by TILA’s one-year limitations period.

The Court affirmed the district court’s initial conclusion because McCray did not challenge the district court’s dismissal for failure to allege that her loan was sold after Congress amended TILA in 2009.  The Court affirmed the district court’s alternative holding as well. McCray did challenge the district court’s alternative conclusion, alleging hat the district court erred by not allowing her the opportunity to amend her complaint.  McCray pointed out that the October 2011 letter was not included in her complaint and instead was contained within the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Yet, McCray submitted an affidavit in her response where she stated she received a letter in December 2011 which repeated that “[t]he investor/noteholder for this loan is [Freddie Mac].” The Court found McCray’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations because McCray conceded notice that Freddie Mac was the owner of the loan in December 2011.

Wells Fargo Did Not Hold Legal Title

Lastly, McCray argued the district court wrongfully dismissed her claim that Wells Fargo violated § 1641(g) when it failed to give her notice that it had been assigned the deed of trust. The district court concluded that § 1641(g) was not applicable because Wells Fargo only received a “beneficial interest” to service the loan and “not legal title.” McCray claimed that a line in the deed of trust granted Wells Fargo an ownership interest and that failure to notify her of this interest was in violated of TILA.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that the Wells Fargo did not obtain an ownership interest because the note was not sold to Wells Fargo. The Court found that simply because the note “can be sold” does not mean “the note was in fact sold to Wells Fargo.” The Court also highlighted that this claim contradicted McCray’s previous claim that Freddie Mac owned the note and failed to provide timely notice of ownership.

Disposition

The Court ultimately reversed and remanded McCray’s FDCPA claim that the White Firm and the Substitute Trustees were acting as “debt collectors.” The Court was careful to note that this reversal was not to indicate whether or not the defendants actually violated the FDCPA. The Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of McCray’s TILA claims.

Judge Johnston Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Judge Johnston, District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation, only dissented on the portion of the decision to affirm dismissal of McCray’s TILA claim against Wells Fargo for failing to provide notice of its interest in the loan. Judge Johnston noted that McCray’s complaint was filed pro se, and as such, should have been construed liberally. Because of this, the complaint could be read to infer that McCray could not identify the actual owner of the mortgage loan. In essence, the TILA claim regarding notice was nothing more than a pro se litigant attempting to “cast a wide net” by alleging both Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac failed to provide her notice of which entity owned the loan. Judge Johnston found the majority opinion’s reading of a pro se complaint to be “unduly strict” at the pleading stage when discovery would surely reveal whether Wells Fargo did receive an ownership interest.

Tags:
23Mar

Fourth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Holding that Auto Loan Creditor Did Not Qualify as a Debt Collector Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Categories: 4th Cir. Blog Civil Cases
Comments Off on Fourth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Holding that Auto Loan Creditor Did Not Qualify as a Debt Collector Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

file0001216750529by Sarah Walton

Today, the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in the civil case of Henson v. Santander Consumer USA. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Santander was not considered a “debt collector” within the meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).

Origins of the Dispute

Plaintiff Rick Henson and three others (“Plaintiffs”) entered into loan agreements with CitiFinancial Auto (“Citi”) to finance the purchase of their vehicles. Plaintiffs eventually defaulted on the loans and Citi sold the loans to Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (“Santander”). After acquiring ownership of the loans, Santander attempted to collect the monies owed. During this process, Plaintiffs alleged that Santander misrepresented the amount of money owed on the loans and whether Santander was entitled to collect on the loans. Plaintiffs ultimately filed suit against Santander, contending that Santander’s actions violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, by engaging in prohibitive collection practices.

The District Court Grants Santander’s Motion to Dismiss

Santander moved to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs failed to plead that Santander qualified as a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. As a result, Santander argued that the FDCPA did not apply to its actions. The district court agreed with Santander, holding that “creditors collecting debts in their own names and whose primary business is not debt collection” are not considered “debt collectors” under the FDCPA. Plaintiffs appealed.

Santander’s Activities Do Not Fall Within the Definition of “Debt Collector” Under the FDCPA

On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that Santander should be considered a “debt collector” because they acquired ownership of the loans when the loans were already in default. As a result, Plaintiffs contended that because the FDCPA excludes from the definition of “creditor” anyone who “receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another,” Santander must be considered a “debt collector.”

The Fourth Circuit disagreed. The court broke down the statutory definition of “debt collector” into two parts. First, the definition of “debt collector” includes “(1) a person whose principal purpose is to collect debts; (2) a person who regularly collects debts owed to another; or (3) a person who collects its own debts, using a name other than its own as if it were a debt collector.” Second, the statute excludes certain parties from being considered debt collectors. For example, an individual seeking to collect a debt on behalf of another when the debt is not in default is excluded from the definition of debt collector.

Using this definition, the court concluded that Santander did not fall under the definition of a “debt collector.” The court reasoned that Santander did not fit the first and third parts of the definition because the complaint neither alleged that Santander’s principal business was debt collection, nor stated that Santander attempted to use a different name when it collected the debts. Further, the court reasoned that Santander did not fit the second part of the definition because was it was collecting the debt for itself, not for a third party. As a result, the Fourth Circuit held that Santander’s activities did not fall within the meaning of a “debt collector” under the FDCPA and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under this cause of action.

The Fourth Circuit Affirms the District Court’s Holding

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint, holding that Santander did not qualify as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA.

 

Tags: