Select Page

Debtors and Creditors
SUNY Buffalo Law School
Russo, Michael

Debtors and Creditors
Prof. Russo
2010 Fall

– Closed book exam, multiple choice 15-20 / fill in the blank / 5-6 short answer questions / no long essay
– No old exams posted
——————————————————————————————————————————-

Intro – vocabulary

– Debt: liability on a claim
– Claim: a creditor’s right to repayment
– Debtor: an individual or entity that owes a creditor something
– Creditor: an individual or other entity that has a claim against a debtor
– Levy: seizure of the debtor’s property by a sheriff
– Attachment: pre-judgment remedy that enables a plaintiff to seize or have a law officer seize property of a DF for purposes of either:
(a) Obtaining jurisdiction over a DF, known as Foreign Attachment AND/OR
(b) Securing an eventual judgment, known as Domestic Attachment
– Garnishment: attachment of the property of a DF which is in possession of a 3rd party
– Lien: an interest in the debtor’s property to secure payment of a debt; When one has lien rights in debtor’s property, that enables the creditor to proceed against that property to enforce a claim.
3 Types of Liens:
(1) Judicial
(2) Consensual
(3) Statutory
– Insolvent: the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property (this means that debtor’s liabilities > than the fair value of its assets)
– Judgment: a piece of paper that is worth nothing if no assets are attached to which the judgment can attach to. Must be signed by the judge

– Post Judgment Enforcement Remedies:
(a) Subpoena the judgment debtor to find out what assets they have Or
(b) Bankruptcy can protect the debtor
– Homestead Exemption: your home is exempt from judgment enforcement
Note: NEW YORK: $50,000 is the limit. Some States: No limit.
– Two Types of Remedies When You Owe Debts:
(a) Judicial: take property, garnish wages, etc.
(b) Non-Judicial: the court is not involved, nor is the state

——————————————————————————————————————————-
< The Fair Debt Collection Protection Act (FDCPA) > 15 U.S.C. § 1692

Background
– Congress enacted this act as a result of cases like Duty (below), where creditors felt no constraints. Before the Act, there was only common law.
– Congress stepped in, b/c debt collection effects interstate commerce.
– Enacted in 1977
– Purpose: to eliminate abusive practices by debt collectors
– The Act applies only to individual consumer debtors and not to business. It is not designed to protect businesses b/c they can turn the matter over to their attorney

Duty v. General Finance Company (1954)
– Debt collector was using all types of abusive practices, including repeated calling, harassing, and calling brother collect long distance
– PL alleged emotional distress and actual damages (lost her job, suffered physically)
– Court said that this was something a jury should decide
è Back in 1954, there was just common law, no statute on point -> needed to show more than mental anguish
– Held: Was a violation of the FDCPA and the debtor’s actual damages were the loss of her job.

FDCPA
§ 1692. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose
(a) Abusive practices
(b) Inadequacy of laws
(c) Available no-abusive collection methods
(d) Interstate commerce
(e) Purpose – to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors

1692a. Definitions
– A debt collector (≠ creditor): any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails whose principal purpose of business is to collect debts
(Note: law firms can be considered debt collectors under the Act, BUT if a partner just asks you to try to get your own money, then your law firm will not be considered a debt collector and is just a creditor)
(Also: FDCPA does not apply to lawyers who are engaged in litigation)
è Quintessential Example: Collection Agencies
– Debt Collector versus Creditor: A debt collector is an entity that is hired to go out and collect the debt, whereas a creditor is the party who lent you the money, so that you could obtain goods or services, in return for your promise to pay.
– Creditor: the party that extended credit to a purchaser in exchange for something
– ** Once a company assigns a debt to a collection agency THEN this act applies. Before this point the company can do anything up to common law harassment, b/c it is the creditor.
– Who does the act protect? CONSUMERS: any Person obligated to pay a debt.
(Note: Businesses are NOT consumers and not protected under the FDCPA)

1692b. Acquisition of location information (contacting 3rd parties)
– A debt collector cannot identify himself as a debt collector unless expressly requested
– BUT, Must identify oneself (saying that he is correcting location information concerning the consumer)
– If asked by 3rd party, must say who the debt collector is working for
– Cannot state that consumer owes a debt or how much consumer owes
– After the consumer obtains atty, collector cannot speak to consumer about the debt

1692c. Contacting consumers
– Consumers: broad definition including spouse, guardian, executor, administrator, parents if debtor is a minor
– Can only call between 8am-9pm, local time at consumer’s location
– No direct communication w/ debtor once collector knows they have a lawyer, unless it has permission
– Can’t call debtor’s work place if collector knows or has a reason to know they can’t receive such communications there

1692d. Harassment or abuse
– Debt collector may not harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with collection of a debt. This conduct is in violation of this section:
► Use of threat or violence to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person
►Profane language
►Publication of names, except to consumer reporting agencies, who allegedly refuse to pay debts
►Advertisement of debt for sale
►Continuous calling to harass – intent to annoy
►Calling w/out following guidelines set forth in section b

1692e. False or misleading representations
– The false representation or implication that

underlying debt to debtor (written notice)
4) Service charges – Can’t try to collect service charges that were not authorized by the agreement between the creditor and the consumer
5) Misrepresentation of the debts – Company was misrepresenting the amount of the debt: Collector was adding the service charge onto the debt and therefore misrepresenting the debt

– Normally only a consumer can sue under the FDCA but there was an exception in this case b/c a grandma of a consumer was asked to pay the debt.
– Piercing the corporate veil – Costen argued that he is not a debt collector within the meaning of the Act, but he misused the corporate form; so, he, President was held liable for the acts of the company.
– The officers of a company can be sued individually if the company was doing their dirty work on their behalf. If the individuals are participating in inappropriate and illegal activities they can be sued individually.

§ 1692a(6) “debt collector”
Any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce of the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly and indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.=> debt collection company, also law firms included

§ 1692c – communication in connection with debt collection
§ 1692c(d) “consumer” defined
For the purpose of this section, “consumer” includes the consumer’s spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator

Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau (1993) p.33
[Debt collector said that they would take legal action to recover the debt in a letter] èThreatening civil action by a debt collector violates the FDCPA because they don’t have that right; only the creditor does. This was a misrepresentation case.

– Issue: Did Great Lakes overstep its bounds by making representation that it would take legal action to recover the debt? YES
– ** The original creditor could have authorized the debt collector to take action with a civil suit, but that was not authorized in this case.
– City Corp. had not authorized Great Lakes to go forward w/ legal action – so it was a deceptive debt collection procedure
– If a creditor says that it has legal authority, it has to actually have legal